Extradition Lawyer in Bremen: Hanseatisches OLG Bremen and the Local Procedure

The practical first steps are to confirm which warrant caused the arrest, secure an extradition lawyer, identify the holding institution and preserve the documents showing identity, residence, medical needs and any objection to surrender. A decision is not necessarily reached at that first appearance. This page addresses the Bremen court, local filing route and family-access questions; for the full German system see extradition from Germany.

Which Bremen authorities handle the file?

The prosecutorial jurisdiction extends across the state of Bremen, including Bremerhaven. The ordinary Staatsanwaltschaft Bremen and its Bremerhaven branch are not interchangeable with the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft for an incoming extradition file. Under IRG sections 13–14, jurisdiction normally follows the district in which the person was apprehended for extradition or, if not arrested, first located. An arrest near but outside the state border does not automatically establish Bremen jurisdiction; counsel must verify the file assignment.

What happens after a Bremen Airport arrest?

If the arrest takes place at Bremen Airport, a police encounter or an INTERPOL Red Notice does not by itself establish which German legal instrument authorises detention. Ask whether the file concerns an EU European arrest warrant (EAW), a third-country extradition request, or a domestic German warrant; immigration removal is a separate procedure.

Under IRG sections 20–22, police must communicate the arrest grounds and a German extradition warrant, if one exists, must be promptly disclosed with a copy. The nearest Amtsgericht judge hears the person within the statutory sequence. The judge checks identity and records objections, but the substantive application for extradition detention and admissibility is handled through the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft and OLG. Someone arrested at the airport may therefore encounter several distinct institutions in rapid succession.

The first 72 hours: a practical plan, not a 72-hour statutory deadline

For an EU European arrest warrant, IRG section 83c(1) sets a decision target of 60 days from arrest; if the person consents to simplified surrender, section 83c(3) sets a 10-day target from consent. These are statutory “should” deadlines, not automatic release dates; section 83c(5) addresses exceptional delay through notification to Eurojust.

After authorisation, section 83c(4) says the agreed handover should occur within 10 days of the authorisation decision; if circumstances beyond the states’ control prevent this, a new date must be agreed and handover should follow within 10 days after that date. Under section 83d, if the person is not taken over within 10 days after the agreed date and no new date is agreed, release from extradition detention is required. See the Germany guide for the full sequence.

Can the Bremen OLG order release while the extradition case continues?

Yes, custody and extradition admissibility are separate questions. Under IRG sections 23–25, challenges to an extradition arrest warrant or its execution go to the OLG Bremen, which may set aside a warrant if conditions no longer exist or suspend its execution if less restrictive safeguards suffice. The OLG also reviews continued extradition detention under section 26 when the statutory two-month review point is reached, measured from apprehension, provisional arrest or the last continuation decision; it can arrange earlier review. Two months is a review interval, not a general maximum permitted detention period. A different rule, IRG section 16(2), requires discharge of the provisional extradition warrant when formal request and supporting documents have not arrived within two months from apprehension or provisional arrest, or three months if a non-European state sought provisional detention. Arrival of those papers and the type of detention must therefore be checked separately.

Submit concrete alternatives rather than merely requesting “bail”: stable residence, documents, availability for summons and any verified treatment needs may be relevant, depending on the identified detention risk. Section 27(2) IRG gives the prosecutor at the OLG the power to designate the holding prison, so relatives must not assume that a person is in JVA Bremen simply because the arrest took place in Bremen.

What has the Bremen court actually decided?

Two published Bremen decisions show the evidence the local OLG expects: in 1 Ausl. A 31/18 (7 September 2018), it held that a legal fiction of service alone does not prove actual notice of trial, although IRG section 83(4) may still permit surrender if the judgment will be served after transfer and a genuine retrial or appeal opportunity is explained; in 1 OAus 20/24 (14 July 2025), it found general Hungarian prison assurances insufficient without information about the likely facilities, but declared surrender admissible on the specific record once that information was supplied.

The CJEU’s joined Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment (C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU) arose from two references by the Bremen OLG, and the Federal Constitutional Court’s order of 24 January 2025, 2 BvR 1103/24, requires a real, individualised assessment rather than reliance on untested general assurances; for either issue, counsel should promptly obtain the actual service/retrial records or current, facility-specific detention information, and the German remedies guide explains the wider refusal grounds and review routes.

How should counsel file a timely submission?

The OLG’s guidance warns that ordinary email does not validly lodge procedural applications; use a legally recognised route such as post, fax or formal electronic legal communication. Outside office hours, the court’s official page identifies a night letterbox to the left of the main entrance at Am Wall 198; check the filing formalities and timely receipt for the actual case. The Generalstaatsanwaltschaft has separate contact rules; those do not change the OLG’s filing requirements.

There is no routine appeal to a different regional court against the Bremen OLG's extradition admissibility ruling: IRG section 13(1) describes OLG decisions as final. Section 42 provides a route for the OLG to refer an important or conflicting legal question to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), not a party's general second-instance appeal. Constitutional relief or urgent interim protection may require separate specialist assessment; it is neither automatic nor a way to suspend imminent transfer merely by sending an informal email. See the focused German remedies and challenge routes.

How can relatives locate the detainee and arrange visits?

JVA Bremen publishes lawyer-visit hours of Monday–Thursday 08:00–19:00, Friday 08:00–17:30, and Saturday 08:15–11:30 and 14:15–17:15; advance booking is recommended. These are the JVA Bremen’s hours only: confirm the person’s actual detention facility and category before arranging travel.

When a judge or prosecution authority imposes visit restrictions, JVA Bremen says outside visitors must first obtain a Besuchserlaubnis from the competent court. A valid permit and photographic ID are essential; such visits may involve acoustic supervision. Do not apply for an ordinary visit slot and assume it overrides a court order. A family member abroad should have counsel verify which court issued the restriction before arranging a translator or travelling to Bremen.

What should a family member or foreign defence lawyer send first?

• The person's full name, date of birth, citizenship, known aliases, arrest time and precise arrest location, including the airport terminal or Bremerhaven if relevant.
• Any warrant, hearing record, file reference, police document or notice from the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft; send legible complete copies, not isolated screenshots.
• Proof of Bremen residence, work, dependants and regular availability; relevant medical records when treatment or detention conditions genuinely matter.
• For an EAW: the issuing court, issuing country, underlying domestic decision, conviction status and any documents proving actual trial notice or retrial rights.
• The current detention facility, any visiting restriction, interpreter language and the best secure way for counsel to contact the detainee.

Hypothetical example: a Romanian citizen is stopped on arrival at Bremen Airport on an EAW for a judgment entered without personal attendance. The immediate task is to obtain the warrant and secure representation before the local-court interview; the next task is to establish whether the judgment was properly notified and what real retrial rights exist. The Bremen OLG, not the airport police, decides judicial admissibility. This example does not predict a case outcome.

For the broader distinction between EU surrender and third-country extradition, consult the EAW versus extradition guide.

The site team can coordinate cross-border defence with local counsel. Contact the team through the confidential enquiry page; this page provides general information, not individual legal advice.