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

Which Istanbul courthouse handles the file?

Istanbul is not a single court district. Article 15 of Law No. 6706 fixes territorial competence by the person's location, not automatically the location of the requesting country's embassy, a family address, or the name “Istanbul” on a flight itinerary. Ask the prosecutor for the investigation number, the judicial authority that ordered detention, and the high criminal court to which the request has been sent. Transfer or a new custody location should be checked against the actual case file rather than assumed to change competence automatically.

Sabiha Gökçen International Airport is in Pendik, according to its official operator. Pendik is within the Anadolu-side institutional territory listed by the official Istanbul Anadolu probation service. The new 24-hour airport duty service may perform the initial judicial acts, while those geographical facts provide a starting point for checking the subsequent extradition venue, not a substitute for reading the actual custody warrant. The Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (İstanbul Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi) is also in Kartal, but its geographical proximity does not make it the ordinary appellate destination for an Article 18 extradition admissibility decision.

An airport stop: the first 72 hours as a practical plan

This is an organising checklist, not a 72-hour statutory period. At either airport, distinguish an immigration refusal, a Turkish domestic arrest warrant, and a foreign extradition request. Ask what legal instrument and Turkish decision authorise the restraint. A Red Notice is a request to locate a person, not by itself the final Turkish extradition order.

Under Article 14, the provisional-arrest period depends on the applicable treaty. Under the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, Article 16, release may become possible after 18 days without the full request and provisional detention must not exceed 40 days in that framework. Under reciprocity without a different treaty rule, Article 14(4) specifies a 40-day maximum. If the required extradition papers do not arrive within the applicable provisional period, Article 14(6) requires provisional custody or judicial control to be lifted. Receipt of formal papers can lead to a new Article 16 measure; freedom on day 40 is therefore not guaranteed.

Where might the person be held, and how can family obtain access?

Do not infer the prison from the airport or courthouse. The Bakırköy courthouse officially links to Metris institutions and Bakırköy Women's Prison, but their existence is not proof that a particular extradition detainee has been sent there. Istanbul contains multiple custodial institutions, and placement can change. Ask the prosecutor or defence lawyer for the institution name, registration details and permissible communication route; do not send original passports or money to an unconfirmed destination.

The Istanbul Bar Association publishes central criminal-procedure (CMK) duty-lawyer contact arrangements; its separately listed Kartal and Bakırköy CMK desks are labelled accounting units, not separate guaranteed walk-in lawyer-assignment offices. A person without chosen counsel should ask the police, prosecutor or judge to initiate the applicable defence-counsel appointment procedure and secure interpretation. Counsel should obtain custody and court records and confirm visits or calls with the actual institution. A foreign citizen may ask for consular contact under applicable rules; consular staff do not replace defence counsel or order release.

Which decision is challenged, and where?

A provisional-arrest or judicial-control order by a sulh ceza hâkimi has a distinct itiraz (judicial objection) route. Under Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) Article 268(1), unless a special rule applies, the objection is submitted to the authority that made the order within two weeks from when the party learns of the decision—not automatically two weeks from arrest or formal service. For a judge-of-peace custody or judicial-control order, CMK 268(3)(b) normally assigns review to the judge of the territorially competent asliye ceza mahkemesi (ordinary criminal court); if that judge performed the peace-judge function, the ağır ceza court president reviews. Objections to a protective-measures order of the ağır ceza court follow the different CMK 268(3)(c) allocation, normally another high-criminal-court chamber. None of these is an Article 18 extradition cassation appeal. Law No. 7499 introduced the two-week rule for decisions on or after 1 June 2024. Counsel should obtain the actual ruling, record when it was learned and verify any special and transitional provision before filing. Under CMK Article 269, filing an objection does not itself suspend the order; the issuing or reviewing authority may separately order suspension.

If the person does not consent to extradition, Article 18 requires the local ağır ceza court to examine admissibility, including the extradition papers and treaty requirements. Its Article 18(4) decision is appealable directly to Yargıtay (the Court of Cassation), not by the usual criminal istinaf route through the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal: Criminal Procedure Code Article 285 preserves this specific exception. Article 18(4) says Yargıtay should determine that appeal within three months; it does not promise that the whole extradition case will end within three months. The current general cassation rule in Criminal Procedure Code Article 291 uses two weeks from service of the reasoned judgment; Law No. 7499 applies these new appeal-clock rules to decisions made on or after 1 June 2024. Counsel must confirm the precise order and applicable transitional rule.

If the person instead agrees to the rızaya dayalı iade consent procedure, Article 17 supplies a separate court decision and an itiraz (objection) route, rather than Article 18 cassation. Counsel must explain consent and any waiver of the specialty protection separately. Once an ordinary admissibility decision becomes final, extradition still needs a distinct executive decision: under the current Article 19, the Minister of Justice proposes and the President approves execution after the relevant ministries' opinions. Consent proceedings instead require Central Authority approval under Article 17(4). Neither judicial admissibility nor consent alone means immediate departure.

During extradition detention, Article 16(2) requires the high criminal court to review custody at intervals of no more than 30 days, including while delivery is pending. The one-year rule in Article 16(3) runs from finality of the court's admissibility decision if there has been no Article 19 executive decision; it is not a one-year limit from arrest. Article 20(2)'s 30 days runs from the agreed handover date if the requesting authorities do not collect the person without justification. These clocks address different stages. Article 16(4) also limits total extradition custody by the term of imprisonment that could be imposed or is being enforced for the alleged offence; that is a separate ceiling, not an automatic one-year-from-arrest limit.

A documented Sabiha Gökçen case: in Jalal Baghırov (Constitutional Court application 2021/28076, 19 December 2023), a traveller was stopped at Sabiha Gökçen and the matter went first to Istanbul Anadolu 7th sulh ceza hâkimliği, then to Istanbul Anadolu 2nd ağır ceza mahkemesi. These numbers describe that historical case, not the chambers automatically assigned to today's arrests. The Constitutional Court found a liberty-rights violation because extradition custody was not reviewed during many months after the consent hearing, despite Article 16(2), and release applications remained undecided. The Court did not rule that every provisional arrest, consent or extradition request is invalid. For a current detainee, ask the assigned court for the dates and written reasons of every 30-day detention review, and seek a reasoned decision on any unanswered release request.

What should be prepared for the Istanbul high criminal court?

Prepare a compact file mapping the foreign demand to the Turkish proceedings. The local lawyer should obtain the correct translated foreign charging or conviction documents, identify the requesting state and relevant treaty (including any reservations), and assess identity, dual criminality, limitation, prior final judgment and protection risks. Law No. 6706 Article 11 includes grounds of non-acceptance and an important qualification where the requesting state gives adequate assurances about the nature of punishment. It is not enough simply to say a charge is “political”: facts and the applicable exception must be examined. Article 11(4) also permits considering disproportionate harm to the person or family, including long residence or marriage; family documents matter, but those circumstances alone do not guarantee refusal. A Turkish national faces a statutory bar subject to the law's stated International Criminal Court qualification.

• For the detained person: identity and nationality documents, proof of lawful residence, interpreter needs, medical evidence, and copies of the arrest decision and service records.
• For family members: the exact airport or district, last confirmed location, case number, name of any already retained lawyer, and a reliable communication channel. If relevant, supply children’s birth records, marriage, residence and dependency evidence for the Article 11(4) inquiry. Give dates, not guesses.
• For foreign counsel: certified procedural documents, sentencing and limitation records, information about proceedings already completed, and concrete supporting evidence for any claimed mistreatment risk.
• For local counsel: identify the actual ağır ceza file and the separate protective-measures file; record each procedural deadline with its triggering event and seek missing documents through the court or the central authority.

Hypothetical: a Georgian national is stopped at Istanbul Airport after a foreign alert. The Gaziosmanpaşa airport judicial unit handles the initial encounter. If an Article 14 provisional arrest is sought, the judge of peace—not the airport's ordinary criminal courts—must decide it within the statutory period. Once the papers reach the prosecution and the person's whereabouts are established, counsel verifies which territorially competent high criminal court has the extradition file. The same person stopped at Sabiha Gökçen would require a fresh check of the Anadolu-side authorities rather than assuming the Istanbul Airport route.

Why extradition and deportation must remain separate

Law No. 6706 Article 12 limits deportation during an extradition process without the Central Authority's opinion, including removal to a state whose request was rejected. Immigration detention is governed by a different legal regime from judicial extradition custody. The European Court of Human Rights in Kunshugarov v. Türkiye (14 January 2025, applications 60811/15 and 54512/17) found an Article 3 violation for inadequate examination of ill-treatment risk before extradition, while assessing separate detention and remedy questions distinctly. It did not hold that any allegation of risk automatically blocks surrender. Evidence, timely domestic applications and the actual destination matter.

For the overall nationwide process see extradition from Turkey; for grounds of refusal and procedural remedies see challenging extradition from Turkey. This local page addresses identifying the Istanbul authority and making the first useful requests, not replacing either national guide.

Lex Agency coordinates cross-border defence work with appropriately instructed local counsel; to discuss the available records, use the request form.