Partijen en gegevens

Andorra considers that, as long as it is not a Party to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted in New York on 9 December 1999, this Convention will not be included in the Appendix to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.

On 22 October 2008, the Principality of Andorra ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism which entered into force 21 November 2008. Consequently, the declaration made by Andorra on 6 May 2008, when ratifying the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, is no longer vaild[lees: valid].

The Principality of Andorra considers that, as long as it will not be a party to the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, adopted in New York, on 13 April 2005, the said Convention shall be deemed not to be included in the Appendix to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism in its application to Andorra.

In accordance with article 20 (2) of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark declares that it reserves the right to not apply article 20 (1) as far as extradition in respect of the offences referred to in Article 5, including article 5 in relation to article 9, is concerned.

The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark declares that until further notice the Convention will not apply to the Faroe Islands and to Greenland.

Renewal of a reservation:

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark declares that it upholds wholly its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention for the period of three years set out in Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention.

The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism was implemented into Danish law by Act No. 542 of 8 June 2006 to amend the Criminal Code, the Administration of Justice Act and various other acts (strengthening efforts to combat terrorism, etc.).

In respect of reservations under Article 20 of the Convention, it appears from paragraph 9.4 of the general notes to the Bill that the Ministry of Justice found it most appropriate to make use of the right to make a reservation as regards the actions referred to in Article 5 and Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Convention on public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. The reason for this is that the subject matter of this offence is the perpetrator's expressions and that the assessment of them is related to the scope of the freedom of expression. In this connection, it is not deemed appropriate to preclude the Danish authorities in advance from regarding a violation of Article 5 or Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Convention as a political offence in specific situations. Based on this, the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark introduced the current section 5(4) of the Extradition Act, according to which extradition for an act covered by Article 5 or Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism may be refused in special situations, if the assessment is that the offence concerned was political. This provision means that the Danish authorities will not be precluded, based on a specific assessment, from regarding a violation of Article 5 or Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Convention as a political offence, as well as, in such situations, the Danish authorities will not be precluded from refusing extradition for this reason alone.

On this background, and in accordance with Article 20 (5) and (6), the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark notified the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that it is upholding its reservation made in accordance with Article 20 (2).

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark declares that it upholds wholly its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention for the period of three years set out in Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention.

The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism was implemented into Danish law by Act No. 542 of 8 June 2006 to amend the Criminal Code, the Administration of Justice Act and various other acts (strengthening efforts to combat terrorism, etc.).

In respect of reservations under Article 20 of the Convention, it appears from paragraph 9.4 of the general notes to the Bill that the Ministry of Justice found it most appropriate to make use of the right to make a reservation as regards the actions referred to in Article 5 and Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Convention on public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. The reason for this is that the subject matter of this offence is the perpetrator's expressions and that the assessment of them is related to the scope of the freedom of expression. In this connection, it is not deemed appropriate to preclude the Danish authorities in advance from regarding a violation of Article 5 or Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Convention as a political offence in specific situations.

Based on this, the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark introduced the current section 5(4) of the Extradition Act, according to which extradition for an act covered by Article 5 or Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism may be refused in special situations, if the assessment is that the offence concerned was political. This provision means that the Danish authorities will not be precluded, based on a specific assessment, from regarding a violation of Article 5 or Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Convention as a political offence, as well as, in such situations, the Danish authorities will not be precluded from refusing extradition for this reason alone.

On this background, and in accordance with Article 20 (5) and (6), the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark notified the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that it is upholding its reservation made in accordance with Article 20 (2).

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark declares that it upholds wholly its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention for the period of three years set out in Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention.

The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism was implemented into Danish law by Act No. 542 of 8 June 2006 to amend the Criminal Code, the Administration of Justice Act and various other acts (strengthening efforts to combat terrorism, etc.).

In respect of reservations under Article 20 of the Convention, it appears from paragraph 9.4 of the general notes to the Bill that the Ministry of Justice found it most appropriate to make use of the right to make a reservation as regards the actions referred to in Article 5 and Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Convention on public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. The reason for this is that the subject matter of this offence is the perpetrator's expressions and that the assessment of them is related to the scope of the freedom of expression. In this connection, it is not deemed appropriate to preclude the Danish authorities in advance from regarding a violation of Article 5 or Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Convention as a political offence in specific situations.

Based on this, the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark introduced the current section 5(4) of the Extradition Act, according to which extradition for an act covered by Article 5 or Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism may be refused in special situations, if the assessment is that the offence concerned was political. This provision means that the Danish authorities will not be precluded, based on a specific assessment, from regarding a violation of Article 5 or Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Convention as a political offence, as well as, in such situations, the Danish authorities will not be precluded from refusing extradition for this reason alone.

Against this background, and in accordance with Article 20 (5) and (6), the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark would like to notify the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that it is upholding its reservation made in accordance with Article 20 (2).

This reservation has been renewed by Denmark by successive periods of three years. The last renewal took effect as from 1 August 2019.

In accordance with Article 14, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova declares that the offences specified in Articles 5–7 and 9 of the Convention are going to be under its own jurisdiction in cases mentioned in Article 14, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

In accordance with Article 25 of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova declares that, until the full re-establishment of its territorial integrity, the provisions of the Convention will be applied only on the territory controlled effectively by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.

In accordance with Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Kingdom of Norway declares that, in the application of this Convention to Norway, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, adopted in New York on 13 April 2005, shall be deemed not to be included in the Appendix.

In accordance with Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Ukraine declares that it shall not extradite citizens of Ukraine to another State. For the purpose of this Convention any person shall be considered as a citizen of Ukraine who in accordance with the Ukrainian laws is a citizen of Ukraine at the moment of decision making about his/her extradition.

In accordance with Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Ukraine declares that in case of receiving of a request about extradition of a transgressor from a Party to this Convention with which the extradition treaty is not available, it shall consider this Convention as a legal basis for extradition of the offenders concerning the offences set forth in Articles 5–7 and 9 of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, Ukraine reserves the right not to be bound by the conditions established in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article by the Party which gives the information, unless it shall receive in advance the notification about the nature of the information given and give its consent to the transfer of the information.

In February 2014 the Russian Federation launched armed aggression against Ukraine and occupied a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and today exercises effective control over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine.

These actions are in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a threat to international peace and security. The Russian Federation, as the Aggressor State and Occupying Power, bears full responsibility for its actions and their consequences under international law.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/262 of 27 March 2014 confirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. The United Nations also called upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

In this regard, Ukraine states that from 20 February 2014 and for the period of temporary occupation by the Russian Federation of a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol – as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation committed against Ukraine and until the complete restoration of the constitutional law and order and effective control by Ukraine over such occupied territory, as well as over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine as a result of the aggression of the Russian Federation, the application and implementation by Ukraine of the obligations under the above Conventions, Protocols, Agreement, as applied to the aforementioned occupied and uncontrolled territory of Ukraine, is limited and is not guaranteed.

Documents or requests made or issued by the occupying authorities of the Russian Federation, its officials at any level in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and by the illegal authorities in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine, are null and void and have no legal effect regardless of whether they are presented directly or indirectly through the authorities of the Russian Federation.

The provisions of the Conventions, Protocols, Agreement regarding the possibility of direct communication or interaction do not apply to the territorial organs of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as well as in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine. The order of the relevant communication is determined by the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv.

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

The Russian Federation declares that it shall have jurisdiction over the offences established in accordance with Articles 5 to 7 and 9 of the Convention in the cases envisaged in Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.

The Russian Federation assumes that the provisions of Article 21 of the Convention shall be applied in such a way as to ensure inevitable liability for the commission of offences falling within the purview of the Convention, without prejudice to the effectiveness of international co-operation in extradition and legal assistance matters.

If the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism were to be extended by the United Kingdom to Gibraltar, Spain would like to make the following declaration:

With due regard to Article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the right to refuse to extradite an alleged offender for any of the offences referred to in Articles 5 to 7 and 9 of the Convention that are regarded as political offences or as offences connected with a political offence, where such offences do not relate to the offences described in the Conventions referred to under points 9 and 10 of the Appendix to the Convention.

This reservation has been renewed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in respect of the European part of the Netherlands, for a period of three years as from 1 November 2022 till 1 November 2025.

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it upholds wholly for the Kingdom in Europe, for another period of three years, its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention.

The Government is of the opinion that the reservation should be renewed to ensure that an extradition request can be denied if, in a highly exceptional case, an independent court finds that the extradition request is a political offence. However, there will be no obligation to deny the extradition request.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the Convention for Aruba.

With due regard to Article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the right to refuse to extradite an alleged offender for any of the offences referred to in Articles 5 to 7 and 9 of the Convention that are regarded as political offences or as offences connected with a political offence, where such offences do not relate to the offences described in the Conventions referred to under points 9 and 10 of the Appendix to the Convention.

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it upholds wholly for the European part of the Netherlands, for another period of three years, its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention.

The Government is of the opinion that the reservation, on the behalf of the European part of the Netherlands, should be renewed to ensure that an extradition request can be denied if, in a highly exceptional case, an independent court finds that the extradition request is a political offence. However, there will be no obligation to deny the extradition request.

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it upholds wholly for Aruba, for another period of three years, its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention in respect of Aruba.

The Government is of the opinion that the reservation, on the behalf of Aruba, should be renewed to ensure that an extradition request can be denied if, in a highly exceptional case, an independent court finds that the extradition request is a political offence. However, there will be no obligation to deny the extradition request.

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it upholds wholly, for the European part of the Netherlands, its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention, for the period of three years set out in Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention.

The Government is of the opinion that the reservation, on behalf of the European part of the Netherlands, should be renewed to ensure that an extradition request can be denied if, in a highly exceptional case, the court should find that the extradition request concerns a political offence.

Note of secretariat

Period covered: 3 years as from 1 November 2019

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the Convention for the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba).

With due regard to article 20, paragraph 2 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, the Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the right to refuse to extradite an alleged offender for any of the offences referred to in articles 5 to 7 and 9 of the Convention that are regarded as political offences or as offences connected with a political offence, where such offences do not relate to the offences described in the Conventions referred to under points 9 and 10 of the Appendix to the Convention.

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it upholds wholly for Aruba, for another period of three years, its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention in respect of Aruba.

The Government is of the opinion that the reservation, on the behalf of Aruba, should be renewed to ensure that an extradition request can be denied if, in a highly exceptional case, the court should find that the extradition request concerns a political offence.

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it upholds wholly for the Caribbean part of the Netherlands, for another period of three years, its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention for the Caribbean part of the Netherlands.

The Government is of the opinion that the reservation, for the Caribbean part of the Netherlands, should be renewed to ensure that an extradition request can be denied if, in a highly exceptional case, the court should find that the extradition request concerns a political offence.

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it upholds wholly for the European part of the Netherlands, for another period of three years, its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention for the European part of the Netherlands.

The Government is of the opinion that the reservation, for the European part of the Netherlands, should be renewed to ensure that an extradition request can be denied if, in a highly exceptional case, the court should find that the extradition request concerns a political offence.

With due regard to Article 20, paragraph 2, of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, Curaçao reserves the right to refuse to extradite an alleged offender for any of the offences referred to in Articles 5 to 7 and 9 of the Convention that are regarded as political offences or as offences connected with a political offence, where such offences do not relate to the offences described in the Conventions referred to under points 9 and 10 of the Appendix to the Convention.

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Neth-erlands declares that it upholds wholly for Aruba, for another period of three years, its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention in respect of Aruba.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has decided to uphold its reservation on behalf of Aruba, to ensure that an extradition request can be denied if, in a highly exceptional case, the court should find that the extradition request concerns a political offence.

Sweden reserves the right to, in relation to other States than the Member States of the European Union and Norway and Iceland, as a ground to refuse a request for extradition, invoke that the offence referred to in the request concerns a political offence, an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives (Article 20, paragraphs 1 and 2).

Sweden declares that the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which is listed in the Appendix to the Convention and to which Sweden is not a Party, shall be deemed not to be included in the Appendix in relation to Sweden (Article 1, paragraph 2).

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Swedish Government declares that it upholds wholly its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention.

The reason for this is that, according to the current Swedish Extradition Act, extradition may in general not be granted if the request concerns a political offence.

In accordance with Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Sweden declares that it has ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which entered into force on 17 September 2014. Consequently, the declaration made by Sweden on 30 August 2010, when ratifying the Convention, is no longer valid.

In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Swedish Government declares that it upholds wholly its reservation made at the time of ratification of the Convention. The reason for this is that, according to the Swedish Extradition Act, extradition cannot in general be granted if the request concerns a political offence. However, there is an ongoing review of the Extradition Act, including the question of extradition for political offences, which Sweden needs to await.

In the context of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Hungary interprets ‘danger’ as ‘clear and present danger’.

The Republic of Turkey declares that Article 19 of the Convention should not be interpreted in such a way that offenders of these crimes referred to in the Convention are neither tried nor prosecuted.

The Republic of Turkey declares its understanding that the term ‘international humanitarian law’ in Article 26 of the Convention refers to international legal instruments to which Turkey is already Party to.

The Republic of Turkey declares that the application of the first part of paragraph 5 of Article 26 of the Convention does not necessarily indicate the existence of an armed conflict and the term ‘armed conflict’ describes a situation different from the commitment of acts, whether organised or not, that constitute the crime of terrorism within the scope of criminal law, and the first part of paragraph 5 of Article 26 should not be interpreted as giving a different status to the armed forces and groups other than the armed forces of a State as currently understood and applied in international law and thereby as creating new obligations for Turkey.

The Republic of Turkey further declares that the application or interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 26 should be in accordance with obligations of States under international refugee law which include, inter alia, the responsibility to ensure that the institution of asylum is not abused by persons who are responsible for terrorist offences stated in this Convention.

The Republic of Turkey declares its understanding that the term ‘settlement of the dispute’ referred to in Article 29 of the Convention shall be interpreted in such a way that the procedure for the settlement of the dispute should only be agreed upon by the parties to the dispute.

The Republic of Azerbaijan […] declares that it is unable to guarantee the implementation of the provisions of the Convention in its territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia, until the liberation of those territories from the occupation (the schematic map of the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan is herewith enclosed).

The Republic of Armenia states that the Republic of Azerbaijan deliberately misrepresents the essence of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue as regards the causes and consequences of the conflict. The conflict arose due to the policy of ethnic cleansing by the Republic of Azerbaijan aimed at repression of the free will of the Nagorno-Karabakh population, followed by the massive military aggression against the self-determined Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. As a result, the Republic of Azerbaijan has occupied several territories of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Declaration in respect of Article 3.4: Malta is in the view that public awareness campaigns mentioned in this article should be left at the discretion of the signatory State in the interest of the general public in order to prevent any unnecessary alarm.

Reservation related to Article 20 of the Convention:

Interpretative declaration related to Article 11.1 of the Convention:

The Belgian government interprets Article 11, paragraph 1, as not preventing the imposition of measures for the protection of young people for the purpose of providing assistance to minors who have committed acts which correspond to the offenses referred to in Articles 5 to 7 and 9 of this Convention, and as not affecting the guarantees relating to specific assistance to minors set out in particular in Articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in New York on 20 November 1989.