Extradition Lawyer in Lodz: Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi and the Local Procedure

If somebody has been arrested, first obtain the arrest record, issuing state, case reference and present place of custody. A police database alert is not itself a final order to extradite. A lawyer can then identify the competent court, arrange a confidential consultation and preserve the appropriate challenge without treating a family enquiry as a formal appeal.

Which Łódź institution controls the file?

Polish law assigns incoming extradition applications and EAW requests to the territorially competent sąd okręgowy. For cases within the Łódź court's jurisdiction, this is Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi. Its published structure includes IV Wydział Karny and XVIII Wydział Karny, both criminal divisions; this does not establish that every international request is assigned to either one. Ask the court's Biuro Obsługi Interesantów (public information office), at plac Dąbrowskiego 5 or telephone 42 68 50 400, to check the actual division and file number.

The Łódź court expressly warns on its official criminal-division page that an ordinary email is not a valid way to lodge a procedural filing and will not enter the case file. With a three-day EAW appeal at stake, have counsel confirm the legally accepted filing channel and obtain proof of timely submission, instead of relying on an emailed attachment or an enquiry to the information office.

The Łódź Bar Council reported in October 2024 that it was preparing a dedicated roster of appointed defenders for extradition, EU EAW and the separate UK surrender procedure, including urgent work on non-working days. This records a local access-to-counsel initiative, not confirmation that a particular duty lawyer is presently available or that representation is free. If the detainee has no defender, ask the handling authority immediately about obtaining appointed defence and the conditions that apply.

An airport detention is not automatically a Łódź regional-court case

Łódź-Lublinek is an officially designated air border crossing. The local Border Guard post covers the entire Łódź voivodeship, whereas the appellate court's criminal division deals with appeals from several distinct regional courts, namely Kalisz, Łódź, Piotrków Trybunalski, Płock and Sieradz. Border-Guard coverage, an airport location and judicial territorial competence are different maps. An arrest involving an investigation elsewhere may therefore require another regional court. Before directing filings or sending relatives across the city, have counsel confirm which prosecutor applied to which court.

Ask whether the document is an EAW transmitted from an EU Member State, an international search alert connected to an extradition request, or a Polish domestic warrant. Even an INTERPOL Red Notice or a Schengen Information System entry does not establish that surrender has been authorised. Polish criminal procedure allows arrest on specified database entries, but judicial scrutiny and the appropriate next stage remain necessary.

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

For detention to which Code article 248 applies, the general safeguards require release if the arrested person is not put at the court's disposal with a remand application within 48 hours of arrest; a further 24 hours after presentation to the court governs service or announcement of the detention order. These are safeguards on the initial arrest, not a prediction that the entire extradition case ends in 72 hours. An arrest complaint under article 246 is directed to the competent sąd rejonowy (district court) of the place of arrest or proceedings, not automatically to the Łódź appellate court.

At the hearing: identify which of two procedures applies

For ordinary extradition to a non-EU requesting state, the prosecutor questions the person and applies to the competent regional court (articles 602–603 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure). The court examines admissibility; the person can give explanations and counsel may attend. An inadmissibility ruling bars extradition. After a final admissibility ruling, the Minister of Justice, not the Łódź court, decides whether the person will be surrendered. The ordinary court ruling is subject to a complaint under article 603(4), generally governed by the seven-day rule in article 460, counted from announcement or required service. Counsel must verify the applicable trigger and the particular order.

For an incoming EU EAW, the prosecutor first informs and questions the requested person under article 607k; the regional court hears the surrender and remand matters under article 607l. The complaint against the surrender order has its own three-day period: from announcement, or from service if the person was detained and was not brought to the sitting (article 607l(3)). The appellate court for a Łódź regional-court surrender order is Sąd Apelacyjny w Łodzi, II Wydział Karny. A request to review arrest legality, a remand challenge and an appeal against surrender must not be treated as one interchangeable document.

Article 607m provides a target of 40 days from arrest for the regional court's EAW decision and 60 days from arrest for the proceeding to become final; exceptionally, the final-decision period can be extended by 30 days with notice to the issuing court. Following recorded consent, the separate targets are three days for the regional-court order and ten days for the proceeding to become final, both counted from that declaration. Where an authorisation to prosecute is needed, article 607m(3), as amended in July 2026, may alter the running of the time limits. These are statutory procedural targets, not a promise of release or a guaranteed hearing date in Łódź. Article 607k limits EAW provisional detention to an aggregate 100 days; ordinary extradition has different rules, including a possible pre-request remand of up to 40 days under article 605(2) and a separate mechanism of up to seven days under article 605a where its conditions are met. Seek individual review of continued custody rather than equating a procedural target with automatic release.

Consent, interpreters and judicial challenges need separate decisions

At an EAW sitting the court may record consent to surrender and separately consent to disapply the speciality rule, which ordinarily limits prosecution for earlier unrelated conduct (articles 607l and 607e). Under article 607l(2) a recorded declaration cannot be withdrawn. Ordinary extradition has its own treaty-dependent simplified-consent route under article 603a, not the EAW declaration. Under article 603a(4), consent and any separate waiver of speciality recorded in that route cannot be withdrawn either. Do not sign an untranslated declaration or assume that agreement to a transfer also means abandoning every possible protection. Request an interpreter where Polish is not adequately understood and have counsel review the translated EAW and any exception invoked.

The local appellate route is real, but a refusal based merely on anxiety or a general statement about another country's prisons is not automatic. Where objectively documented detention conditions create a serious risk, the Court of Justice's Aranyosi and Căldăraru ruling requires a specific assessment and further information from the issuing authority. A later EU ruling, Rastoshev (12 February 2026, C-712/25 PPU), also cautions against treating the location of an alleged offence in the executing state as an automatic refusal ground. EU-law interpretations bind the Łódź courts where relevant; individual Łódź appellate orders do not create a general common-law-style precedent. For substantive refusal grounds and the separate remedies, consult the Poland remedies guide. The later Rugu and Aucroix judgment (4 June 2026, C-722/23 and C-91/24) further explains that, where execution of a sentence-enforcement EAW is refused for detention-condition risks, the executing state must take all possible steps towards enforcement of that sentence domestically; refusal is not an acquittal.

Where can the detained person be visited?

Areszt Śledczy w Łodzi is at ul. Smutna 21, but a person detained on an international request might be in a police facility, this remand centre or another designated establishment. First ask the case lawyer and responsible authority to confirm the actual place and custody status. Do not promise relatives that the remand centre will disclose someone's details over an ordinary telephone call.

The remand centre publishes 42 675 01 75 for arranging personal visits. Booking calls are listed for Mondays 12:00–17:00 and Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays 09:00–14:00; booked visitors are instructed to arrive 30 minutes early. The prison separately publishes limited visit dates for people on remand, so these telephone-booking hours are not permission to walk in or a guarantee of a visit. A remand visit may require authorisation from the appropriate authority. Defence-counsel access follows different rules; the prison's published guidance refers separately to lawyer visits. Confirm current arrangements directly before travelling.

What should family members and foreign counsel send?

• Full name, date of birth, citizenship(s), document numbers and a reliable spelling of the name in Latin and other scripts.
• Arrest time and location, arresting authority, protocol, file reference, issuing country and whether the paper says EAW, SIS, INTERPOL or extradition request.
• The court or prosecution notice, any summons or hearing date, and where the person is actually held; identify the source and date of this information.
• Documents relevant to communication and custody: residence, dependants, necessary treatment, disability accommodations and the language in which the person can take legal advice.
• The foreign lawyer's case reference and certified copies of relevant foreign judgments or procedural notices, without assuming overseas documents replace Polish court filings.

Hypothetical example: a Georgian national is stopped at Łódź-Lublinek following an alert linked to a non-EU state's request. The family's first task is to identify the detaining service and prosecutor, not to file an EAW appeal. Counsel must establish whether the alert is being processed under articles 605a and 602–605 and whether the case has actually reached Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi. By contrast, an EAW issued by Germany uses articles 607k–607m and different appeal timing. The nationality of the person alone does not choose the procedural route.

For the national legal framework and detailed stages, see Extradition from Poland. For a separate regional-court jurisdiction, see the Warsaw court guide; its filing channels should not be used for a Łódź case unless jurisdiction has actually been transferred.

For case-specific legal assistance involving independently instructed Polish counsel, use the secure request form. This page is legal information, not an assessment of any individual's case.