Extradition Lawyer in Cologne: OLG Köln and the Local Procedure

Why the place of arrest determines the Cologne authorities

Under sections 13 and 14 of the German Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (IRG), the higher regional court and its public prosecutor are generally determined by where a person is first apprehended for extradition, or, if not apprehended, first identified. Cologne's OLG district comprises the regional-court districts of Cologne, Bonn and Aachen, with 23 local courts. It is a different district from OLG Düsseldorf and OLG Hamm. A Cologne address or a flight through the region does not by itself establish Cologne jurisdiction if the person was apprehended elsewhere or a statutory allocation exception applies.

For an arrest in Bonn city, the nearest court will ordinarily be Amtsgericht Bonn; the exact arrest site still controls. If the arrest occurred at Cologne/Bonn Airport or elsewhere, confirm the presentation court with the arresting authority rather than assuming it is Amtsgericht Köln.

For an actual local file, counsel should establish the place and legal basis of arrest, which police authority holds the person, the receiving prosecution file number and whether an existing OLG or other-district proceeding affects jurisdiction. This matters where a German domestic arrest warrant and a foreign request run in parallel: they are not one and the same legal basis for detention.

Which Cologne institution does what?

The NRW justice bulletin lists international assistance cases newly registered by Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Köln under “Ausl” and “AR” for electronic files from 2 June 2025; it assigns electronically transmitted cases with a leading electronic file to the OLG Köln 3. Strafsenat. Separately, the court’s 2026 business-allocation plan assigns international criminal legal-assistance matters to the 3rd Criminal Senate. This is useful when tracing an administrative reference and identifying where counsel should seek the operative judicial file. It does not prove that every historic paper file has been converted, and later presidential allocation amendments may apply.

After arrest at Cologne/Bonn Airport: the first hearing

International alerts lead to real arrests at Cologne/Bonn Airport. For example, the Federal Police reported on 28 September 2026 that it arrested a man wanted by French authorities and transferred him from airport police to Polizeigewahrsamsdienst Köln; the Cologne general prosecutor handled the extradition proceedings. That confirms a possible local custody route, not a guarantee that every airport arrestee goes to the same facility or will be surrendered.

IRG sections 21 and 22 distinguish arrest under an existing German extradition detention warrant from a provisional arrest. In either route, the person must be produced without delay and no later than the day after apprehension before the nearest Amtsgericht judge. The judge must question the person promptly and at the latest on the day after presentation. The judge checks identity and personal circumstances, explains the right not to comment on allegations, and records objections. Legal counsel should check which section applies before calculating a deadline; the first judge is not deciding the full merits of the foreign prosecution.

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

The 72 hours above is an organisational checklist, not a separate German extradition limit. Where an EAW is involved, IRG section 83c provides a target of a decision within 60 days from arrest, or 10 days from consent to simplified surrender; exceptions and subsequent handover arrangements must be checked. Those are not automatic release dates. For non-EU provisional extradition detention, section 16(2) sets different document-receipt limits: generally two months from apprehension or provisional arrest, three months when a non-European state requested provisional detention. Applicable treaties may require earlier action. Section 26 provides recurring OLG detention review after each two-month period of extradition detention; it does not establish a universal two-month maximum.

Detention, counsel and contact with family

Under IRG section 40, a person can use legal assistance throughout the case and arrest makes representation necessary. If no lawyer has been retained, one must be appointed without delay. Initially, the court to which the person is presented appoints the lawyer; once the general prosecutor has filed the section 29 admissibility application, the competent OLG decides appointment. A relative should communicate the chosen lawyer's details as early as possible, but must not assume that calling a police desk effects a court appointment.

Being held in Köln police custody after an airport arrest is not the same as being admitted to a particular Justizvollzugsanstalt (prison). The fact that JVA Köln exists does not establish that an extradition detainee is housed there. Ask the defence lawyer to verify the current custodial facility, prisoner reference, visitor authorisation, phone arrangements and any court-imposed restrictions before travel. If a person is moved within the OLG district or elsewhere, the family must reconfirm access rather than use an outdated prison address.

If the detainee cannot follow German, request language assistance at once. IRG § 77(1) applies the Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (GVG) and other procedural codes supplementarily where the IRG has no special rule. Under GVG § 187, the court must arrange interpretation or translation to the extent needed to exercise procedural rights; this does not mean every file document must always be translated fully in writing, because § 187 permits oral translation or an oral summary in defined circumstances. Counsel should verify which documents were translated and whether the hearing was genuinely understood. A bilingual family member is not an adequate substitute for interpreting the judicial procedure.

Where should a Cologne lawyer direct an objection?

An objection to the extradition detention warrant or its execution belongs at OLG Köln through the applicable process (IRG sections 23–26), not as an ordinary appeal from the initial Amtsgericht appearance. The OLG may suspend execution of the extradition warrant if less intrusive safeguards suffice under section 25; its review is case-specific and is not a promise of bail. For a contested admissibility ruling, the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft submits the matter under section 29, and the OLG determines admissibility under section 32. Formal approval or refusal to implement surrender is legally distinct from judicial admissibility. Under NRW’s published allocation rules, the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft decides EAW requests from EU Member States and surrender requests from Iceland and Norway; for a third-state request, it decides in the relevant treaty-routed cases if the person consents to simplified surrender under section 41. In other third-state cases, counsel must identify the competent approval authority from the treaty, transmission channel and applicable delegation rather than assume that the OLG or local police makes that decision.

Under section 13 IRG, the OLG's extradition rulings have no ordinary appeal. A fresh determination under section 33 is a narrower possibility when new circumstances arise or previously unknown circumstances are discovered that could change admissibility; the OLG can order postponement. It is not a routine second appeal. Other urgent constitutional safeguards are a different track and need separate legal assessment. For the nationally applicable refusal grounds and remedies, see how extradition from Germany may be opposed, rather than treating a local appointment as legal review.

The OLG's own published decision 3 OAus 144/25 of 21 January 2026 illustrates an important limit: in an EAW case, the court does not ordinarily retry the underlying suspicion. The judgment recognises that exceptional scrutiny may still be called for where concrete circumstances indicate an abusive request or a risk of proceedings contrary to fundamental rule-of-law principles; it is not a general invitation to re-argue the foreign evidence. In that case, the 3rd Criminal Senate made admissibility conditional on a return to Germany, at the person’s request, to serve any final custodial sentence; it also rejected the applications to lift or suspend extradition detention. That condition is case-specific, and neither it nor release follows automatically in another case. Counsel should identify a legally relevant defect in the actual request and evidence, not merely ask the Cologne court to retry the foreign facts.

Documents to prepare and one Cologne example

Hypothetical example: a Georgian citizen arrives from Istanbul at Cologne/Bonn Airport and is detained on an alert linked to a non-EU request. The family abroad sees only the airline itinerary. Their first useful question is not “Will Cologne extradite him tomorrow?” but “Which police unit holds him, when is the next-day Amtsgericht presentation, and has Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Köln received the actual request?” Counsel checks identity, the domestic arrest instrument, section 16 detention paperwork and the correct treaty route; an international alert alone should not be treated as a complete explanation of the legal basis for detention.

• Provide the person's full legal name, birth date, citizenships and any other verified spelling of the name.
• Give the exact arrest location and time, flight details and copies of any German detention or foreign warrants received.
• Identify any German criminal proceedings, immigration decision or pending protective status separately; deportation and extradition are different processes.
• Send the foreign judgment or case reference, proof of residence and dependants, and relevant medical evidence with dates.
• Ask which consent or speciality-waiver question was put at the hearing. Under section 41 IRG, simplified-surrender consent and waiver of speciality are separate declarations, and consent is irrevocable.
• Find out whether the case is an EU EAW, for example from France or Poland, or a non-EU request; UK, Switzerland and Türkiye are not EAW member states merely because they are European.

For the full national procedure and treaty distinctions, consult the Germany extradition guide. Cologne's key local difference is the actual OLG Köln / Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Köln workflow, the nearest-Amtsgericht first hearing, the Cologne/Bonn airport-to-police handover, and the 3rd Senate electronic-file routing. Arrest in Düsseldorf instead is dealt with in the Düsseldorf court district guide. The site's team can coordinate cross-border defence with independently instructed local counsel; send a confidential enquiry.