Rule of Speciality: Extradited Defendant Tried for Another Offence

A defendant who is abroad is handed over to the Turkish authorities at a border crossing by Georgia, at Türkiye's request. Three months after the handover, the defendant is questioned in a different case that was never mentioned in the extradition request, and on the same day is convicted of attempting to use another person's bank card. The judgment becomes final. Although on paper everything looks like an ordinary criminal trial, the Ministry of Justice asks for this judgment to be quashed in the interest of the law. The ground is the rule of speciality, one of the basic safeguards of international criminal cooperation: an extradited person cannot be tried, without the consent of the extraditing state, for another act that was not the basis of the extradition and was committed before it.

By its decision of 15 June 2026, Docket No. E.2026/2598, Decision No. K.2026/6489, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepted the request of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Cassation and unanimously quashed, in the interest of the law under Article 309/3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), the conviction for misuse of bank or credit cards.

🌍 The card offence case and the handover at the border

By an indictment dated 3 April 2023, the Afyonkarahisar Chief Public Prosecutor's Office brought a public prosecution against the defendant for "misuse of bank or credit cards". While the case was being heard in file No. 2023/309 of the Afyonkarahisar 6th Criminal Court of First Instance, an arrest warrant was issued so that the defendant's statement could be taken.

While the arrest warrant was awaiting execution, it was found that the defendant was abroad, and the defendant was handed over to Türkiye by the Georgian Interpol unit on 25 July 2024 at the Artvin-Sarp Border Crossing. According to the text of the decision, however, this extradition was requested not for the card offence case but for the enforcement of the judgment of the Denizli 4th High Criminal Court dated 16 March 2017, Docket No. 2016/150, Decision No. 2017/92.

On 24 October 2024 the criminal court of first instance questioned the defendant and, by its judgment of the same date, Decision No. 2024/811, sentenced the defendant under Articles 245/1 and 35/2 TCK (attempt) to 2 years and 3 months of imprisonment and a judicial fine of 60.00 TL. Because no application was made within the time limit against the supplementary decision rejecting the defendant's appeal, the judgment became final as of 16 November 2024.

📨 The Ministry's objection: the extradition was for another case

By a letter dated 13 March 2026, the Ministry of Justice requested quashing in the interest of the law under Article 309/1 CMK; by its notice dated 2 April 2026, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Cassation sent the case to the Chamber. The substance of the request is as follows:

1. Under Article 90/5 of the Constitution, international treaties that have been duly put into effect have the force of law.
2. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition, an extradited person cannot, except in the listed exceptions, be prosecuted or tried for an act other than the one on which the extradition was based and that was committed before the extradition.
3. The defendant's extradition from Georgia was requested only in respect of the judgment of the Denizli 4th High Criminal Court.
4. For a trial to be held in the card offence case, consent should have been requested from the competent Georgian authority and no action taken until that process concluded; delivering a conviction instead was incorrect.

📚 The three texts the Chamber relied on

⚖️ Grounds for quashing: investigation first

Assessing these texts together, the Chamber set out the following principle: under the rule of speciality, a person extradited by another country can be investigated, prosecuted or have a sentence enforced in the requesting country only for the offence or offences that formed the basis of the extradition decision. If, after the extradition, another offence or conviction emerges that was committed before the extradition decision and was not the subject of the extradition, no investigation or prosecution can be carried out for it, and no conviction can be enforced, without separate consent from the extraditing state.

Starting from this principle, the Chamber listed step by step the investigation that the local court should have carried out before giving judgment:

1. Determining for which offence or offences the defendant was extradited from Georgia,
2. If it is established that the defendant was not extradited for the card offence in question, investigating whether consent was requested from the extraditing state on this matter,
3. Adding to the case file the correspondence and decisions on this matter in a form that allows review,
4. If it is found that the conditions for trial were not met, separately assessing the conditions in Article 14/1-b of the Convention, that is, whether the person had the opportunity to leave the country after being released.

Finding it contrary to law that a conviction was given without regard to these points, the Chamber considered the request well founded on the stated grounds, quashed the judgment in the interest of the law and, under Article 309/4-b CMK, ordered the case to be sent to its court for the necessary steps to be taken. By departing slightly from the "stay of proceedings" proposal in the request, the Chamber's reasoning does not determine the outcome directly but draws the framework of the investigation to be carried out by the court.

🛡️ What does the rule of speciality mean?

The rule of speciality protects both the sovereignty of the extraditing state and the legal security of the extradited person. The extraditing state examines the extradition request in respect of a specific act or judgment; it assesses conditions such as dual criminality, the severity of the penalty and the political offence exception for that act. If the requesting state, after taking custody of the person, were to try them for acts never mentioned in the extradition request, this review by the extraditing state would be rendered meaningless.

The rule is not absolute. The Convention leaves two main doors open: later consent by the extraditing state, and the extradited person not using the opportunity to leave the country within a set period after release. A notable point in the decision is that the Chamber made both possibilities a subject of investigation. If consent exists, or the conditions in Article 14/1-b have arisen, the obstacle to trial may fall away; otherwise no judgment can be given in the card offence case.

The difference in time limits between the bilateral agreement and the Convention is also noteworthy: the Convention speaks of 45 days, while the Türkiye–Georgia agreement speaks of 15 days. While asking for the conditions of Article 14/1-b to be assessed, the Chamber made no separate finding on the relationship between the two texts; this assessment was left to the local court.

🧭 Effect of the decision on criminal proceedings

For a different example of evidence assessment in fraud committed through bank instruments, see the article on crypto purchases made by impersonating a bank employeeTR; for another application of the route of quashing in the interest of the law, see the article on the drunk driver and Article 179 TCKTR.

❓ Questions

For detailed information and legal support, you can contact Savun Law & Consultancy. Contact details are on the contact page, and other decisions are in the Precedent DecisionsTR archive.