Extradition Lawyer in Ankara: Ankara ağır ceza mahkemeleri and the Local Procedure

Why might an extradition file go to Ankara even when nobody knows where the person is?

Article 15 of Law No. 6706 creates an important Ankara-specific rule. Ordinarily, the high criminal court for the place where the wanted person is located deals with admissibility of extradition. If the person's whereabouts are unknown, the competent high criminal court is in Ankara. The Ministry of Justice's published international-cooperation guidance says the file then goes through the Ankara Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı (Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office). That does not prove the person has been arrested in Ankara, nor does it identify the numbered chamber assigned to the case.

The distinction changes the first step for a lawyer. For a person physically arrested in Ankara, check the local custody and court records. For a family that only knows a request has been transmitted to Turkey but has no confirmed location, ask Turkish counsel to check whether an Ankara file exists under the unknown-whereabouts rule, without assuming that the person is held there. If the person is instead confirmed in another judicial district, competence must be reassessed. The Ministry is the central authority; it does not itself substitute for the court's admissibility determination.

Which Ankara institutions should the family distinguish?

The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal (Ankara Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi) exists, but it should not be inserted automatically between the high criminal court and the Court of Cassation in this special proceeding. Law No. 6706 provides direct temyiz (cassation review) of a non-consensual admissibility judgment by the Yargıtay, the Court of Cassation. Confusing ordinary criminal appeals with this route can waste crucial time.

An arrest at Esenboğa: what happens in the first 72 hours?

The following is a practical response plan, not a statutory 72-hour detention period. For an airport arrest, the family should first confirm the officer's agency, the time of apprehension and the legal grounds recorded, rather than assuming that an INTERPOL alert itself orders detention. Turkey's Ministry of Justice explains that a Red Notice or diffusion is assessed in the Turkish system; under the ordinary Article 14(1) route, provisional detention requires a qualifying foreign request and the central authority's approval. Article 14(2) contains a distinct statutory exception, so counsel must inspect the actual legal basis.

The 1957 European Convention on Extradition, when applicable between the two states, addresses provisional arrest in Article 16: release becomes possible if the full request has not arrived within 18 days, and detention in that provisional phase may not exceed 40 days. Article 14(4) of Law No. 6706 instead applies the relevant treaty, or a 40-day ceiling under reciprocity without one. These figures are not a general maximum for every later stage. If the requisite papers are not supplied within the applicable provisional period, Article 14(6) provides for lifting detention or judicial control, but subsequent safeguards after receipt of the full request are legally distinct.

Türkiye is not an EU Member State, so the European Arrest Warrant is not its surrender procedure. Before using the Convention’s 18/40-day rules, counsel should verify the requesting state’s treaty participation and any relevant reservations or protocols; those rules must not be applied indiscriminately to every country.

Where can someone be held, and how can a lawyer see them?

The Ankara justice administration publicly lists Sincan T-Type Closed Prison, Sincan No. 1 and No. 2 L-Type Closed Prisons, and other separate establishments in the Sincan/Yenikent complex. The Sincan T-Type institution's own description confirms that it operates in that complex and has dedicated attorney consultation rooms. The Sincan No. 2 L-Type institution also publicly describes 14 lawyer-consultation booths. These are verifiable access facilities, not evidence that an individual extradition detainee has been allocated to either prison.

Ask the prosecutor or the authorised lawyer to verify custody through the official prison and case systems before travelling. A police holding location, a prison after a detention order and an immigration removal centre are different; custody in one does not establish custody in another. Family visiting schedules depend on the actual establishment and its visitor rules. Do not send documents, money or relatives to a Sincan gate merely because “Sincan” appears in a search result.

The Sincan prison administration publishes separate visitor rules. A lawyer qualified outside Turkey should coordinate with a Turkish bar-registered lawyer rather than assume that a foreign professional licence alone permits a confidential prison consultation. Request the exact institution’s current visiting instructions and identify the authorised Turkish defender before arranging travel. A lawyer appointment or an interpreter should be confirmed from the court record, not presumed from an online directory.

Which court controls detention after the full extradition request arrives?

Under Article 16 of Law No. 6706, the competent high criminal court may apply safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code while the extradition procedure continues. If the person remains detained, that court must examine detention at intervals no longer than 30 days until handover. Counsel should keep separate copies of the provisional-arrest order, the high criminal court's later detention orders, hearing minutes and each subsequent periodic review. The file chronology often determines the correct request for release or judicial control. Article 16(3) also requires protective measures to be lifted if no executive extradition decision is made within one year after a court’s admissibility ruling becomes final; Article 16(4) separately caps aggregate detention by the relevant potential or imposed sentence. Neither rule automatically turns the 40-day pre-request period into the full-case maximum.

The Turkish Constitutional Court's decision Jalal Baghirov (application 2021/28076, 19 December 2023) found a rights violation where the competent criminal court failed to conduct the Article 16(2) reviews or decide repeated release applications. But the same decision recognises a substantial margin of assessment for national courts regarding detention justification and rejects treating extradition detention exactly like detention for a Turkish criminal charge. The useful question is therefore not “has forty days passed?” in isolation, but which legal phase now applies, what court last decided detention, and whether that court performed its specific review duties. The earlier Constitutional Court decision Samira Alakbarova (application 2018/19302, 22 February 2022) also addressed due diligence in extradition custody.

A challenge to an Ankara detention order is separate from the Article 17 objection against a consensual admissibility decision and the Article 18 cassation of a non-consensual decision. Ask Turkish counsel to identify the signed detention order and the competent objection authority under the Criminal Procedure Code. The two-week cassation filing period must not be reused as a detention-objection deadline.

What happens at the Ankara hearing, and what must not be confused?

Where the person does not consent, Article 18 directs the competent high criminal court to determine whether extradition is legally admissible; it can request missing papers from the requesting state. It does not conduct the foreign criminal trial. Before the hearing, obtain the indictment or foreign judgment, the request and its translations, identity documents, hearing notice and any custody decisions. Ask counsel to record exactly what was translated, served and explained. The court should address the person's position on consent as required by Article 17 without treating a request for interpretation as consent.

Consent to the simplified procedure under Article 17 is different from remaining silent or waiving a particular hearing; its consequences must be explained. A consensual admissibility decision is subject to itiraz (objection), whereas an ordinary non-consensual Article 18 decision is subject to temyiz before the Yargıtay. Under the Criminal Procedure Code's Article 291 as revised by Law No. 7499, the general cassation filing period for decisions within the amended regime is two weeks from service of the reasoned judgment, subject to the applicable transitional provisions and case-specific route. Counsel must verify service and file promptly; Article 18's requirement that the Yargıtay decide within three months is a judicial processing provision, not an extra three months for the defendant to file. Article 17(4) makes execution of a consensual decision subject to central-authority approval; this should not be confused with the separate Article 19 route after ordinary admissibility proceedings.

Even a final judicial finding of admissibility is not itself physical surrender. Article 19 calls for a separate executive decision after inter-ministerial consultation and approval at presidential level, under the updated text. Equally, immigration removal is not a substitute for the extradition procedure: Article 12 restricts deportation during extradition without the central authority's opinion. The detailed refusal grounds and post-decision challenges belong in the Turkey remedies guide; the sequence of national stages is in the country guide.

Consent to simplified extradition does not itself establish whether any separate waiver of the rule of speciality was given. Before a choice is recorded, counsel should check precisely which consequences and any speciality waiver were explained, translated and entered in the hearing record.

What should a relative or overseas lawyer send to Ankara counsel?

• Full name in every spelling, date of birth, nationality and passport details; include proof of an identity mismatch if there is one.
• Arrest date, exact time, place, agency, police record, judge's order and any reference from the Ministry of Justice.
• Actual location of custody, if confirmed, and the specific Sincan establishment or police unit, not a guessed facility.
• Copies of the foreign request, warrant, charging instrument, judgment, translations and notices of service; distinguish original documents from informal screenshots.
• Health records, fixed-address evidence, family responsibilities and lawful residence papers relevant to access or a request for less restrictive custody.
• Names of interpreters and lawyers already involved, the next hearing date, and whether consent or waiver of speciality was discussed or recorded.

Hypothetical example: a Georgian citizen is stopped at Esenboğa on a request from a European Convention state. Their sister hears only that the person has been “sent to Sincan”. Ankara counsel should verify the arrest basis and Article 14 timing through the duty prosecutor, identify the actual institution before attempting a visit, and find out whether an Article 15 high criminal court file has been opened. The sister should not presume that the 40-day provisional-arrest ceiling guarantees release after the full extradition request is received.

For cross-border coordination with Turkish defence counsel, the site's team can review documents and explain the next lawful step through the consultation request.