Extradition Lawyer in Berlin: Kammergericht Berlin and Local Procedure

Which Berlin institution has the extradition file?

The court's name alone does not tell you where to go or which official handles the next step. Berlin's higher regional court is called the Kammergericht. Under §§ 13–14 IRG, the territorially competent higher regional court makes the main judicial decisions; the prosecutor attached to it prepares the extradition decision and carries out an authorised surrender. A ruling that surrender is admissible is not itself the executive act of handover.

Who hears the person first after a Berlin arrest?

Sections 21 and 22 IRG cover two situations: arrest under an existing extradition arrest warrant and provisional arrest. In either case, the person must be presented without delay, at the latest on the day after arrest, to a judge of the nearest Amtsgericht (local court). The judge must question the person promptly after presentation and no later than the following day. These are two separate deadlines with different starting points; they do not create a general 72-hour detention allowance.

For an arrest inside Berlin, the first appearance is before the nearest Amtsgericht, not the Kammergericht. Amtsgericht Tiergarten’s official guidance lists the investigation-judge service at Turmstraße 91 and the criminal standby court at Tempelhofer Damm 12. These are different locations; the actual venue follows the duty arrangement. Ask the arresting officer or counsel to confirm where the person was taken rather than assuming the Kammergericht is the first court.

What should happen during the first 72 hours?

The table below is a practical action plan, not a statutory 72-hour decision deadline. The legal presentation and questioning deadlines are in §§ 21–22 IRG; act sooner where possible.

Under § 40 IRG, an arrest makes legal representation necessary. If the person has no lawyer, the court must appoint one without delay after arrest; the court to which the person is brought decides first, and the competent higher regional court decides after the prosecutor files the § 29 application for an admissibility ruling. The person may nominate counsel. In an EAW case, a separate lawyer in the issuing state may also help with the foreign file. Request an interpreter immediately if the person cannot understand the questions or papers, and do not sign a declaration without understanding its legal effect.

Which detention applications belong at the Kammergericht?

The local Amtsgericht is not an ordinary appeal court for an extradition detention warrant. Under § 23 IRG, objections to the warrant or its execution are decided by the Kammergericht if Berlin has territorial jurisdiction. Under § 25, the court may suspend execution of the warrant if less restrictive measures can secure the purpose of detention. Under § 24, the warrant must be lifted when the legal basis for detention no longer exists or extradition is declared inadmissible. A request to lift a warrant and a request to suspend its execution are distinct; neither succeeds automatically because a person has a Berlin address or family.

Section 26 IRG requires the OLG to review ex officio whether continued extradition detention remains justified when the total period of extradition detention reaches two months, calculated from the arrest, provisional arrest or last decision on continuation. The review is repeated every two months unless the court sets a shorter interval. This is a review schedule, not a two-month maximum detention term; counsel can raise a concrete objection earlier. Under § 27, the prosecutor attached to the OLG selects the detention facility, so the court address does not establish where the person is held.

If the person has not consented to simplified extradition, the prosecutor applies under § 29 IRG for a ruling on admissibility. The Kammergericht may request additional documents or take evidence under § 30; an oral hearing is possible under the statutory procedure but should not be assumed in every file. Section 13 says OLG decisions are not subject to an ordinary appeal. Section 33 permits a renewed admissibility decision when new or newly known circumstances could justify a different outcome; it is not a routine second appeal. Constitutional urgent relief, where available, is a separate process before the Bundesverfassungsgericht. Detailed refusal grounds and remedy deadlines belong in the Germany remedies guide.

Does an arrest at BER Airport fall within Berlin jurisdiction?

BER Airport is at Willy-Brandt-Platz, 12529 Schönefeld, in the Land Brandenburg, not the Land Berlin. The name “Berlin Brandenburg” does not make an airport arrest a Berlin arrest. Under § 14(1) IRG, territorial jurisdiction normally follows the district where the person is apprehended for extradition; if there is no apprehension, it follows the place where the person is first identified. For a BER arrest, the default is therefore the Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht and the prosecutor attached to it, the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft des Landes Brandenburg, not Kammergericht Berlin. Counsel should confirm which court and prosecutor have actually seized the file before filing. Section 14(2) creates an exception for specified connected proceedings involving multiple people. A later transfer to a Berlin prison does not by itself change the competent court.

Section 14(2) contains a specific rule where several people are sought for participation in the same act, or for the statutorily listed connected offences of assisting the offender, frustrating prosecution or receiving stolen goods. In those cases, jurisdiction depends on which OLG, or—before any OLG is seized—which prosecutor at an OLG was first seized with the matter. That exception means that the arrest address is an important starting point, not the only fact that can matter in a linked case. Give counsel the exact terminal or location, arrest time, police record and any related file numbers. Before sending a submission to Berlin, confirm which court and prosecutor have actually taken the file; where the arrest was at BER, check the Brandenburg route first.

Where may the person be held, and how can family make contact?

Do not assume that a person arrested for extradition is held at JVA Moabit. Under § 27 IRG, the prosecutor attached to the territorially competent OLG selects the detention facility. If the location is unknown, private enquiries to Berlin’s Zentrale Auskunftsstelle des Berliner Justizvollzuges (ZASt) must be made in writing (letter, fax or email); for data-protection reasons, ZASt does not disclose a detainee’s location by telephone. If JVA Moabit is confirmed, its published visit and contact rules below are the starting point, subject to any case-specific restriction.

At JVA Moabit, visits must be booked in advance and a valid identity document is required at entry. For a remand prisoner subject to a procedural contact restriction, a Sprechschein (visit authorisation) from the responsible judge or prosecutor is required; the prison says it remains valid for four weeks. The published schedule for remand prisoners allows two visits of 60 minutes each month, but confirm any case-specific restriction before travelling. Prisoners cannot receive incoming telephone calls, although they may make calls at their own expense under prison rules. Arrange confidential lawyer access directly with the institution; do not assume that a family visit also authorises a lawyer meeting.

What must counsel check in the foreign warrant?

First identify the instrument. A European arrest warrant (EAW) is the EU surrender procedure; a request from a non-EU state follows a different treaty and statutory route. Do not describe the two as interchangeable. For the country-wide stages and treaty basis, see the Germany extradition guide; the separate EAW procedure guide explains the instrument itself.

For a European Arrest Warrant (EAW), § 83c IRG sets target periods: the decision should normally be made within 60 days after arrest, or within ten days after consent to simplified surrender. These are decision periods, not release dates. Article 17(4) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA allows a further 30 days in a specific case if the executing judicial authority immediately informs the issuing judicial authority of the delay and its reasons. Separately, if exceptional circumstances prevent compliance with the periods in § 83c, subsection (5) requires the Federal Government to inform Eurojust of the circumstances and reasons for delay, without transmitting personal data. Under § 41 IRG, consent to simplified extradition is recorded before a judge and cannot be withdrawn. A waiver of speciality is a separate decision; silence, consent to surrender and waiver of speciality have different consequences, so obtain advice before deciding.

A Berlin-specific example of document review is the Court of Justice of the EU judgment in Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin, Case C‑397/22, 21 December 2023, referred by the Kammergericht. If a summons was handed to an adult member of the person's household, the issuing authority must be able to show that the person actually received official notice; delivery to the household member alone is not enough. The Court also clarified that the “trial resulting in the decision” is the stage at which a court finally determined guilt and sentence after a fresh examination of the facts and law. An appeal can qualify if it performed that function; an appeal that did not re-examine the merits does not automatically count. EU law also precludes a blanket national rule automatically refusing every EAW based on an in-absentia conviction without applying the Framework Decision's exceptions. Obtain the summons, proof of actual receipt and the first-instance and appeal decisions; do not assume every in-absentia case must be refused.

The Federal Constitutional Court’s order of 5 August 2026, 2 BvR 364/26, set aside the Munich Higher Regional Court’s decision allowing surrender to Romania. Although that court accepted that systemic prison-condition deficiencies persisted, it relied on a nearly two-year-old general assurance without adequately checking current conditions in the likely detention facility or the assurance’s reliability. This does not create a blanket bar on surrender to Romania; it requires a current, case-specific assessment of the real risk. The Constitutional Court did not admit the separate complaint against extradition detention because it did not sufficiently address the lower courts’ reasoning and changed circumstances. A constitutional complaint is not an ordinary appeal: counsel must assess the current detention decision and the strict substantiation requirements.

What should relatives or foreign counsel send first?

• Full name, date of birth, all nationalities and German residence status; send identity documents securely to counsel.
• Time and exact location of arrest. A Berlin street and BER Airport in Schönefeld may lead to different territorial-jurisdiction questions.
• Arrest record, warrant or alert reference, first-hearing record, language used during questioning and the arresting agency, if known.
• Berlin or Brandenburg court and prosecution file numbers, if available, and the known police station or detention facility.
• Foreign arrest warrant or judgment, documents showing whether the person attended the relevant hearings, and any written assurances or pending proceedings.
• Urgent welfare information: medication, interpreter needs, children or dependants, stable address, employment and time-sensitive appointments.

Hypothetical example: a person with a Polish residence permit is arrested on a Romanian EAW in central Berlin and brought before a local judge. Counsel should verify the Tiergarten hearing location, ensure that defence counsel is appointed, identify the file with Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin Department 15 and Kammergericht, and obtain the foreign warrant and related documents. If the same person is arrested at passport control at BER in Schönefeld, the default under § 14(1) is the Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht and the prosecutor attached to it, not Kammergericht Berlin, unless the connected-case rule in § 14(2) applies. Before filing, counsel should confirm which court and prosecutor have actually seized the file, and provide the exact arrest location and time, police record, warrant reference and any related file numbers. In either scenario, first appearance, detention challenge and admissibility ruling are distinct steps.

For coordinated cross-border defence, the site's team can help organise a case assessment with local German counsel. Request a consultation.