Partijen en gegevens

Sweden does not accept Chapter I of the said Protocol.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares, in accordance with Article 6 of the aforementioned Protocol, that it does not accept Chapter I of the Protocol.

Although Dutch legislation is fully in accordance with Article 1 (opening words and a. and b.) and does not contain any provisions, contrary to Article 1 (opening words and c) in the case of acts committed during an international armed conflict, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to reserve for itself the right to refuse extradition in cases of violations of laws and customs of war which have been committed during a non-international armed conflict.

Since Article 6 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition makes possible the exclusion of the totality of Chapter I or II only, Hungary declares, that it does not accept Chapter I of the said Protocol.

Although Hungarian law is in accordance with Article 1a, and b, and does not contain any provision contrary to subparagraph c, Hungary reserves the right to consider on a case-by-case basis whether or not to satisfy extradition requests based on subparagraph c.

Pursuant to Article 6, Norway declares that it does not accept Chapter I of the Protocol.

Iceland does not accept Chapter I of the Protocol.

The Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition and in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Second Additional Protocol of 17 March 1978, is extending the application of both Protocols to the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba in relation with the Parties, for which the European Convention on Extradition also applies to the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.

The declaration as made by the Netherlands in respect of the Additional Protocol of 15 October 1975 shall also apply to the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.

[Note by the Secretariat: The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands had declared that it does not accept Chapter I of the Protocol].

The Protocol remains applicable in the relation between Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba) and those States with which notes have been exchanged on the extension of the Convention. The declaration as made for the Kingdom of the Netherlands on 12 January 1982 remains applicable between the States mentioned above and Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba).

Although Ukrainian legislation is in accordance with Article 1, paragraphs a and b, and does not contain any provision contrary to the paragraph c, Ukraine declares that it does not accept Chapter I and reserves the right to decide, in accordance with the Chapter, on a case-by-case basis whether or not to satisfy extradition requests.

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.

In accordance with Article 6.1 of the Additional Protocol, we declare not to accept Chapter I.

On 13 June 2002, the Council of the European Union adopted a framework decision (2002/584/JHA) on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (‘the framework decision’). Article 31 of the framework decision states that, from 1 January 2004, the provisions of the framework decision shall replace the corresponding provisions of the conventions pertaining to extradition that apply in relations between the Member States of the European Union.

By Note of 31 August 2005, the Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands informed the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the European Convention on Extradition, done at Paris on 13 December 1957 (‘the Convention’), would no longer be applied in relations between the part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands situated in Europe and the Member States of the European Union that are Parties to the Convention.

Accordingly, the Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has the honour to confirm that, in view of the foregoing, the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (‘the Additional Protocol’) is likewise no longer applied in relations between the part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands situated in Europe and the Member States of the European Union that are Parties to the Additional Protocol.

The Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands would emphasise that the above in no way alters the application of the Additional Protocol in relations between:

Considering its declaration on Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition of 1957, the Russian Federation does not regard as exhaustive the list of offences contained in Article 1 of this Protocol that are not offences of a political nature.

Given its statement concerning Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition of December 13, 1957 the Russian Federation does not consider the list of offences that are not ‘Political offences’ set forth in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol of October 15, 1975 to the European Convention on Extradition of December 13, 1957, as exhaustive.

In accordance with Article 6 of the Protocol, Malta declares that it does not accept Chapter I of the Protocol.

Georgia declares that it does not accept Chapter I of the Protocol and reserves the right to decide, in accordance with the Chapter, on a case-by-case basis whether or not to satisfy an extradition request.

Georgia will not be responsible for the application of the provisions of the Protocol on the territories of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region until the full jurisdiction of Georgia is restored over these territories.

Pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 1, the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares that it does not accept Chapter II of the Additional Protocol.

The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it is unable to guarantee the application of the provisions of the Convention and its Additional Protocols in the territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia until these territories are liberated from that occupation.

Pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 1, the Republic of Turkey declares that it does not accept Chapter I of the Additional Protocol.

Turkey declares that its signing/ratification of the 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 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 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 Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 086), 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 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 par. 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 the Hellenic Republic has examined the Declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification, on 11 July 2016, of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, which raises grave concerns both from a political and a legal point of view.

This declaration is politically unacceptable to the extent that a Member State of the United Nations and other regional organisations, such as the European Union and the Council of Europe, is designated as defunct, contrary to the relevant decisions and resolutions of these organisations.

Likewise, this declaration is problematic from the legal point of view in so far as it provides that the signing/ratification by Turkey of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition should not imply any obligation on the part of Turkey to enter into any dealing with the Republic of Cyprus within the framework of the said Protocol. In fact, this statement amounts to a reservation, as it purports to exclude the application of the Protocol in its entirety between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus, despite the fact that Article 6, paragraph 3, of this Protocol mentions that no reservation may be made in respect of its provisions.

In light of the above, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the aforesaid Turkish reservation is impermissible as it is prohibited by Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition as well as contrary to the object and purpose of this Protocol to the extent that it prevents the realisation of inter-State cooperation under the Protocol.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic, therefore, objects to the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the above Protocol.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Turkey.

Opposition of the Portuguese Republic to the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey to the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, 15 October 1975.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition.

It welcomes the ratification of the Additional Protocol by the Republic of Turkey as a significant step for the strengthening of the protection of humanity and of individuals.

Nevertheless, the Portuguese Republic, as a European Union Member State, opposes the declaration of the Republic of Turkey since it describes another EU Member State, the Republic of Cyprus, as a defunct entity.