Where German criminal jurisdiction applies alongside that of the requesting state, extradition under § 9 No. 2 IRG is impermissible if the offence would be time-barred under German law. Only the domestic limitation rules govern — investigative or prosecutorial acts of the requesting state do not interrupt the period.
"Whether extradition is impermissible under § 9 No. 2 IRG is to be assessed exclusively by reference to domestic limitation rules. Acts of the requesting state that under German law would be capable of interrupting limitation are — unlike within the scope of the European Convention on Extradition (ECE) — immaterial."
What the case was about
The Peruvian authorities requested extradition for the purpose of prosecution. The request rested on an Interpol Red Notice of 5 July 2022 and an arrest warrant issued by the court of Callao on 17 June 2022. The person sought was accused of having engaged a courier, for payment, to transport 8.210 kg of cocaine hydrochloride from Peru to the United States; the courier had been intercepted with the narcotics at the airport on 25 May 2004. The Local Court (Amtsgericht, AG) Frankfurt am Main had issued a provisional detention order.
The decision
The Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) Frankfurt am Main declines to issue a provisional extradition arrest warrant. The detention order of the AG Frankfurt of 26 February 2026 (931 Gs 96/26) is set aside; the person sought must be released from custody immediately. Extradition is impermissible because it is barred by the obstacle of domestic prosecutorial time-bar (§ 9 No. 2 IRG).
The operative reasoning
Under § 6 No. 5 StGB, German criminal law also applies to the unauthorised distribution of narcotics; under more recent case law, a domestic connection of a distribution act committed abroad is no longer required (BGHSt 67, 284 marginal no. 14). The offence would be punishable under German law (§§ 29(1) No. 1, 29a(1) No. 2 BtMG, § 27 StGB), but its prosecution in Germany is precluded by limitation: the twenty-year period expired on 24 May 2024.
Decisive is the distinction from treaty-based extradition. The case law on Art. 10 ECE — under which extradition remains permissible despite domestic time-bar provided the requesting state has taken acts that under German law would be capable of interrupting limitation (BGHSt 33, 26 et seq.) — cannot be transposed to § 9 No. 2 IRG. Art. 10 ECE governs limitation conclusively and takes precedence pursuant to § 1(1) and (3) IRG. By contrast, § 9 No. 2 IRG presupposes that German jurisdiction is also established; the yardstick is "exclusively the domestic limitation rules, which also include the provisions on acts interrupting limitation" (cf. Zimmermann in Schomburg/Lagodny, IRG, 6th ed., § 9 marginal nos. 28, 30). Under § 78c StGB, limitation is therefore interrupted only "if the domestic prosecuting authorities have taken corresponding interrupting acts" (cf. OLG München GA 1983, 89; KG, order of 2 February 2022 — (4) 151 AuslA 178/21 (23/22)). The issuance of the Peruvian arrest warrant on 17 June 2022 did not suffice for this purpose.
Significance for practice
The decision sharpens a doctrinally fine but practically consequential interface between the IRG and the StGB. In non-treaty extradition relations, or those not covered by the ECE — here with Peru — the bar in § 9 No. 2 IRG applies wherever German criminal jurisdiction is also established, and it does so strictly under the domestic limitation regime. The combination of the expanded reach of German criminal-application law (§ 6 No. 5 StGB without any domestic connection, BGHSt 67, 284) and domestic limitation can turn into a bar to extradition precisely in older cases.
In third-state cases outside the ECE, a two-step check is always advisable: (1) Is German jurisdiction established via §§ 5–7 StGB? (2) Would the offence be time-barred under German law — disregarding any foreign interrupting acts? The decision also shows that an Interpol Red Notice may trigger the arrest, yet leaves the bar to extradition untouched.
Citation: OLG Frankfurt am Main, order of 06.03.2026 — 1 OAus 30/26.
Source: Hessenrecht Landesrechtsprechungsdatenbank (juris); ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2026:0306.1OAUS30.26.00.