Partijen en gegevens

In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 4 of the Third Additional Protocol to the Convention, Latvia declares that consent to extradition under the simplified procedure and renunciation of entitlement to the rule of speciality may be revoked.

In accordance with Article 5 of the Third Additional Protocol to the Convention, Latvia declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the Convention do not apply where the person extradited by Latvia, in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol, consents to extradition and expressly renounces his or her entitlement to the rule of speciality.

In accordance with Article 5 of the Third Additional Protocol to the Convention, the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that with the application of the Protocol by the European part of the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), the rules laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition do not apply.

In accordance with Article 5(a), of the third additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, the Czech Republic declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition do not apply where the person extradited by the Czech Republic consented to the extradition, in accordance with Article 4 of the third additional Protocol.

The Republic of Azerbaijan ratifies the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition and declares that it is unable to guarantee the implementation of the provisions of the Protocol in its territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia (the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan and its seven districts surrounding that region), until the liberation of those territories from the occupation and complete elimination of the consequences of that occupation (the schematic map of the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan is herewith enclosed).

The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that, until the liberation of its territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia from the occupation and complete elimination of the consequences of that occupation, the Republic of Azerbaijan shall not cooperate with the Republic of Armenia within the framework of the Protocol.

In accordance with Article 5 (b) of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, the Republic of Cyprus declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition do not apply when the person extradited by the Republic of Cyprus consented to her or his extradition and expressly renounced her or his entitlement to the rule of specialty, in accordance with Article 4 of the said Additional Protocol.

Pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Protocol, the Republic of Slovenia declares that the consent to extradition may be revoked until the Competent Court of the Republic of Slovenia takes its final decision on extradition under the simplified procedure.

Pursuant to Article 5 of the Protocol, the Republic of Slovenia declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the Convention do not apply where the person extradited by the Republic of Slovenia consents its extradition and expressly renounces his or her entitlement to the rule of speciality.

Spain declares that, in the event that the present Protocol were to be ratified by the United Kingdom and extended to the territory of Gibraltar, Spain wishes to make the following Statement:

In accordance with Article 5 of the Third Additional Protocol, the Federal Republic of Germany makes the following declarations:

Consent to the simplified procedure is independent of renunciation of entitlement to the rule of speciality. The rules of Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition only do not apply where the person sought consents to extradition and in addition expressly renounces his or her entitlement to the rule of speciality.

In accordance with Article 17 (1) sentences 1 and 2 of the Third Additional Protocol, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that, without prejudice to the aforementioned declaration, all reservations and declarations made in respect of the Convention remain applicable.

The Republic of Turkey declares that all the documents defined in Article 12 of the Convention need to be submitted, in cases where the simplified extradition procedure is applied, in accordance with paragraph 1, Article 2 of the Third Additional Protocol.

In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Third Additional Protocol to the Convention on Extradition, the Republic of Turkey declares that consent to extradition under the simplified procedure and renunciation of entitlement to the rule of specialty may be revoked.

In accordance with Article 5 of the Third Additional Protocol to the Convention on Extradition, the Republic of Turkey declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the Convention do not apply where the person extradited by Republic of Turkey, consents to extradition and expressly renounces his or her entitlement to the rule of specialty.

Turkey declares that its signing/ratification of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition neither amounts to any form of recognition of the Greek Cypriot Administration’s pretention to represent the defunct “Republic of Cyprus” as party to the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, nor should it imply any obligations on the part of Turkey to enter into any dealing with the so-called Republic of Cyprus within the framework of the said Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition.

“The Republic of Cyprus” was founded as a Partnership State in 1960 by Greek and Turkish Cypriots in accordance with international treaties. This partnership was destroyed by the Greek Cypriot side when it unlawfully seized the state by forcibly ejecting all Turkish Cypriot members in all the state organs in 1963. Eventually, Turkish Cypriots who were excluded from the Partnership State in 1963 have organized themselves under their territorial boundaries and exercise governmental authority, jurisdiction and sovereignty. There is no single authority which in law or in fact is competent to represent jointly the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots and consequently Cyprus as a whole. Thus, the Greek Cypriots cannot claim authority, jurisdiction or sovereignty over the Turkish Cypriots who have equal status or over the entire Island of Cyprus.

The Republic of Cyprus has examined the Declaration deposited by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 209), dated 11 July 2016 and registered at the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe on 13 July 2016.

The Republic of Turkey declares that its ratification of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition neither amounts to any form of recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, as party to that Protocol, nor should it imply any obligation on the part of the Republic of Turkey to enter into any dealing with the Republic of Cyprus within the framework of the said Protocol.

In the view of the Republic of Cyprus, the content and purported effect of this Declaration makes it tantamount in its essence to a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the Protocol. By such Declaration, the Republic of Turkey purports to evade its obligations under the Protocol vis-à-vis another equal and sovereign State Party, namely the Republic of Cyprus. Indeed, the Declaration prevents the realization of cooperation between State Parties foreseen by the Protocol.

The Republic of Cyprus therefore strongly rejects the aforesaid Declaration made by the Republic of Turkey and considers such declaration to be null and void. The aforementioned objections by the Republic of Cyprus shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol, in their entirety, between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey.

Regarding the Republic of Turkey’s pretension, as expressed in the same Declaration, that “the Republic of Cyprus is defunct and that there is no single authority which in law or in fact is competent to represent jointly the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots and consequently Cyprus as a whole”, the Republic of Cyprus would like to remind of the following:

Despite, being, through binding international agreements, a guarantor of “the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus” (Article II of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee), the Republic of Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus in 1974 and continues since then occupying 36.2% of the territory of the Republic.

The illegality of such aggression was made manifested by the U.N. Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984). Resolution 541’s operative paragraph 2 considers “the declaration [of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus] as legally invalid and “calls for its withdrawal”. Paragraph 6 then “calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus” and further at paragraph 7 “calls upon all States not to recognize any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus”. Resolution 550, operative para. 2, also “condemns all secessionist actions, including the purported exchange of Ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership, declares them illegal and invalid, and calls for their immediate withdrawal”. Para. 3 then « reiterates the call upon all States not to recognize the purported state of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” set up by secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity”.

The European Court of Human Rights additionally, in its Judgment of 10th May 2001 on the Fourth Interstate Application of Cyprus v. Turkey, found, at para. 77, that Turkey, which has “effective control over northern Cyprus”, is responsible for securing all human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and for violations of such rights by her own soldiers or officials, or by the local administration, which are imputable to Turkey. The responsibilities of the occupying power emanate from international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Turkey is responsible for the policies and actions of the “TRNC” because of the effective control she exercises through her army. Her responsibility is engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration, which survives by virtue of Turkish military and other support (Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment, 10 May 2001, at pp. 20-21, reiterating Loizidou). From the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Security Council Resolutions on Cyprus, it is evident that the international community does not regard the “TRNC” (Turkey’s subordinate local administration in occupied Cyprus, condemned in the strongest terms by the Security Council ) as a State under international law (Cyprus v. Turkey, 10 May 2001, para. 61). In contrast, the Republic of Cyprus has repeatedly been held to be the sole legitimate Government of Cyprus, contrary to Turkey’s assertions about that Government, which Turkey calls “the Greek Cypriot Administration” with pretences “to represent the defunct Republic”. The Turkish assertions constitute a propaganda ploy to divert attention from Turkey’s responsibility for the violations in occupied Cyprus. Turkey’s assertions and her assorted objections to the Republic of Cyprus’ authority, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and her claims on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots and the “TRNC”, have repeatedly been rejected by the international community and relevant judicial bodies where such claims were fully argued and then rejected in Cyprus’s pleadings.

Misrepresentations about the treatment of Turkish Cypriots by the Government of Cyprus were made. (These claims were repeated in Turkey’s current Declaration). In fact, the European Court of Human Rights and the Commission accepted Cyprus arguments and refutation of Turkish assertions and exaggerations about the period prior to Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in July 1974. It refused to pronounce on Turkey’s version of the ejection of Turkish Cypriots from offices of State (there was in fact a Turkish boycott).

It is now time for the relevant pronouncement in Resolutions and the decisions therein, as well as in judgments of the European Court of Human Rights to be heard and acted upon. The Court itself insisted in its 12 May 2014 Just Satisfaction Judgment that this must happen once the Court had spoken (Cyprus v. Turkey, p. 23 Joint Concurring Judgment of nine Judges). It should be emphasized that, as recently as 26 July 2016 (Security Council Resolution 2300), the Security Council reaffirmed all its relevant Resolutions on Cyprus, having, over several decades, reiterated their content.

Nevertheless, the Republic of Turkey, not only flagrantly holds in contempt all relevant U.N. Resolutions, International Law rules and the U.N. Charter on the matter, but furthermore she continues violating international legality, by systematically questioning the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus and further promoting the illegal secessionist entity in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus, including through declarations, as the one at hand.

The Government of Austria has examined the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, adopted on 10 November 2010. It welcomes the ratification of the Additional Protocol by Turkey as a significant step in simplifying and accelerating extradition procedures.

However, as a member State of the European Union, Austria opposes the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey which describes another member State, the Republic of Cyprus, as a defunct entity.

In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Third Additional Protocol to the Convention on Extradition, Switzerland declares that consent to extradition under the simplified procedure may be revoked as long as the Federal Office of Justice has not authorised the surrender.

In accordance with Article 5.b of the Third Additional Protocol to the Convention on Extradition, Switzerland declares that the rule of specialty laid down in Article 14 of the Convention do not apply where the person criminally prosecuted expressly renounces his or her entitlement to the said rule.

In accordance with Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Protocol, the Republic of Lithuania declares that it avails itself of the right not to accept Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Protocol.

In accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol, the Republic of Lithuania declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition do not apply where the person extradited by the Republic of Lithuania, in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol, consents to extradition.

In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Protocol, the Republic of Lithuania declares that the consent to extradition under the simplified procedure may be revoked until the competent court of the Republic of Lithuania takes its final decision on extradition under the simplified procedure.

In accordance with Article 5 of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, Romania declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition do not apply where the person extradited by the Romania consented to her or his extradition and expressly renounced his or her entitlement to the rule of speciality.

In accordance with Article 5 of the Additional Protocol, the Republic of Moldova declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition do not apply when the person extradited by the Republic of Moldova consents to extradition under the simplified procedure and renounces his or her entitlement to the rule of speciality.

In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Third Additional Protocol, Ukraine declares that consent of a person to extradition under the simplified procedure and, where appropriate, renunciation of a person of entitlement to the rule of speciality, may be revoked before their authorisation by an investigative judge.

In accordance with Article 5, subparagraph b, of the Third Additional Protocol, Ukraine declares that Article 14 of the Convention do not apply when the person extradited by Ukraine consented to extradition and expressly renounced of entitlement to the rule of speciality.

The Permanent Representation of Ukraine to the Council of Europe presents its compliments to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and has the honour […] to inform about the impossibility to guarantee the implementation by the Ukrainian Side in full of its obligations under the above mentioned international treaties of Ukraine for the period of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine, until full termination of the infringement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of borders of Ukraine.

[…]

Referring to Ukraine’s notification dated 18 April 2022 N° 31011/32-119-26603 [Council of Europe Notification JJ9359C dated 13 May 2022] in connection with the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, [the Government of Ukraine] further clarif[ies] that international treaties mentioned therein are implemented on the territory of Ukraine in full, with the exception of the territories where hostilities are (were) conducted, or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, on which it is impossible to fully guarantee the Ukrainian Party’s fulfillment of its obligations under the relevant treaties as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, as well as the introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine until the complete cessation of encroachment on the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of Ukraine.

The regularly updated list of territories where hostilities are (were) conducted, or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation is located at the link below:

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1668-22#Text

In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 4 of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, the Italian Republic declares that the consent and the renunciation of entitlement to the rule of speciality may be revoked in the cases provided for in the same paragraph 5 and in compliance with the current provisions of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code.

In accordance with article 5, paragraph 1 (b) of the Protocol, the Italian Republic declares that the rule of speciality laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition does not apply where the person extradited expressly renounces his or her entitlement to its application.

[…] the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wishes the application of the Convention to be extended to the territory of Gibraltar, for whose international relations the United Kingdom is responsible.

The Government of the United Kingdom requests the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe to circulate this Note to all other Contracting Parties informing them that, pursuant to Article 27, paragraph 4, of the Convention, an arrangement giving effect to this extension will be deemed to have been made between the United Kingdom and each of the Contracting Parties from which the Secretariat has not received a Note of objection within 90 days of the date of circulation.

With regard to the communication that the United Kingdom addressed to the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe on 29 July 2019, concerning the intention of the United Kingdom to extend to Gibraltar the application of the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 24), of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 98), of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (CETS No. 209) and of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (CETS No. 212), Spain, recalling that it is a Party to the said Convention, as well as to the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 86) and to the Second and Third Additional Protocols, makes the following statement:

Spain desires that co-operation in this matter, made possible between Spain and the United Kingdom by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, should also be effective in Gibraltar. As required by Article 27, paragraph 4, of the Convention, this requires the direct agreement of the Parties. Consequently, the Spanish authorities consider that, under Article 27, paragraph 4, the United Kingdom must apply directly to the Parties to seek their agreement, which must be express. States Parties should not have received a communication from the Council of Europe’s Treaty Office, other than a request from the United Kingdom. Reaffirming the need to follow this procedure for future occasions, Spain responded to this communication by addressing the United Kingdom directly, by means of a Note verbale delivered to its Embassy in Madrid on 22 October, expressing its agreement. Spain does not accept that a territorial extension of the Convention can take place merely by tacit acceptance.

With regard to the communication that the United Kingdom addressed to the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe on 29 July 2019, concerning the intention of the United Kingdom to extend to Gibraltar the application of the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 24), of the Second Additional Protocol thereof (ETS No. 98), of the Third Additional Protocol thereof (CETS No. 209) and of the Fourth Additional Protocol thereof (CETS No. 212), Spain, recalling that it is a Party to the said Convention, as well as to the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 86) and to the Second and Third Additional Protocols, makes the following statement:

The Government of the French Republic declares, in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition that consent of the person sought to his or her extradition, and, where appropriate, renunciation of entitlement to the rule of specialty, given before the French judicial authority in accordance with French law, may be revoked at any time until the decision of the judicial authority relating to extradition in accordance with the simplified procedure has become final.

The Government of the French Republic declares, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph b, of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the Convention, relating to the rule of specialty, shall not apply to persons extradited by the French authorities where such persons, having consented to their extradition, expressly renounces his or her entitlement to the rule of specialty.

In replacement of the declaration contained in the instrument of ratification [of the European Convention on Extradition] deposited on 10 February 1986, the Government of the French Republic declares that, with regards to France, the Convention and its second, third and fourth Additional Protocols apply to the entire territory of the Republic.