Extradition Lawyer in Munich: OLG München and the Local Procedure

The route depends on where the person was found and whether the request is a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) or from a non-EU state. For national procedure, see the Germany extradition guide.

Which Munich authorities handle the case?

Under § 14 of the German Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, IRG), venue normally follows the district where the person is apprehended for extradition or, if no apprehension occurs, where the authorities first identify the person for the extradition procedure—not the city named in the foreign warrant.

The OLG München district covers Upper Bavaria, Swabia, Deggendorf, Landshut and Passau—ten Landgericht and 38 local-court districts across over half of Bavaria.

What should happen after arrest? A practical first-72-hours plan

This is a practical plan, not a statutory “72-hour” limit; §§ 21–22 IRG govern first appearance.

Where might the person be held, and how can family arrange a visit?

Under § 27(2) IRG, the prosecution at the OLG determines the detention facility; confirm where the person is actually held rather than infer it from the arrest city. If the person is held at Justizvollzugsanstalt München (JVA München), visits within the statutory minimum allowance are limited to three visitors. Each visitor needs a valid official identity document or passport; driving licences, vehicle papers and residence documents are insufficient. Visits generally require telephone booking at least one working day beforehand. Holidays and organisational changes may affect arrangements.

Family should give counsel a callback number and short chronology. Foreign counsel should send proof of representation, the warrant or judgment and available translations. Under §§ 185 and 187 of the Courts Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, GVG), interpretation and translation must be provided when needed for procedural rights.

Which deadlines apply in the Munich district?

For a non-EU request, timing depends on the treaty, complete papers and any further evidence or assurances. Under § 30 IRG, the OLG may request supplements and take evidence; delay alone does not mean refusal.

What can be challenged, and is there an ordinary appeal?

An INTERPOL alert alone is not a German extradition decision or an automatic basis for surrender. Under § 19 IRG, police and prosecutors may make a provisional arrest before a formal extradition arrest warrant has been issued if the statutory conditions for such a warrant are met; an alert alone does not establish those conditions. The OLG München decides objections to an extradition arrest warrant or its execution under § 23 and may suspend execution under § 25 if less restrictive measures reliably secure the process. Support a release application with concrete facts, such as a stable address and workable reporting arrangements.

Under § 33 IRG, new circumstances arising or discovered after the admissibility decision may justify reconsideration if they could change the result. Identify the new fact and its effect; repeating old arguments is not an appeal. Detailed refusal grounds belong in the Germany guide to challenging extradition.

There is no ordinary appeal from an OLG extradition decision (§ 13(1) IRG). Section 42 is not an individual appeal to the Bundesgerichtshof: it provides for a reference on a qualifying legal question, initiated by the OLG or following an application by the prosecutor at the OLG or the Federal Public Prosecutor. A constitutional complaint to the Bundesverfassungsgericht is exceptional, not a second factual appeal. It generally must be filed and substantiated within one month. Under § 93(1) BVerfGG, the period normally runs from service or informal notification of the complete decision; where service is not required, it runs from pronouncement or other notification. If no complete written copy is supplied, a written request for the full decision can interrupt the period as the statute provides. The exact trigger must be checked from the case file. Filing a constitutional complaint does not automatically stop surrender; interim relief must be requested separately under § 32.

What do recent Munich decisions change?

In OLG München, 1 OAus 33/26, 30 March 2026, the court continued detention while postponing the admissibility decision for further fact-finding, including expected detention conditions in Turkey and medical questions. Custody and final admissibility are separate questions.

In OLG München, 1 OAus 167/25, 19 February 2026, the court rejected a renewed application that did not properly identify new decision-relevant facts. It held that a stay under § 33(4) IRG lasts only until the OLG decides the renewed application; it cannot be extended merely to await the BVerfG’s ruling on interim relief. That urgent request must be made to the BVerfG under § 32.

On 5 August 2026, in BVerfG, 2 BvR 364/26, the Federal Constitutional Court set aside and remitted to OLG München the part of its decision authorising surrender to Romania under an EAW. The OLG had not sufficiently investigated current likely detention conditions despite evidence of systemic problems and likely placement in a particular prison. Under the EAW framework, the executing court must seek up-to-date information about the likely facility; where systemic deficiencies remain and the destination facility is not identified, it generally needs positive evidence that a general assurance is reliable or an individual assurance. This was a Romania/EAW case, not an automatic bar to every Romanian transfer or third-state extradition. The Court did not admit the separate constitutional challenge to continued detention for decision because it was insufficiently substantiated and had not been updated after the OLG’s 16 April 2026 detention-review order. For a live case, counsel must check the OLG’s post-remand decision and current custody orders. OLG rulings are fact-specific; BVerfG decisions bind courts and authorities under § 31 BVerfGG.

Is the request an EAW or extradition from a third state?

Check the document. An EAW is a judicial surrender instrument between EU Member States under Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the IRG. A request from the United States, Turkey, Switzerland or another non-EU state is ordinarily extradition under the IRG and the applicable treaty; an INTERPOL or Schengen alert does not turn it into an EAW. The European Convention on Extradition applies according to the state relationship and reservations. Germany’s Article 21 reservation for air transit without landing requires assurance that the person is not German and does not claim German nationality; between EU states, the EAW regime replaces the Convention.

A Red Notice or diffusion is an alert, not a German surrender decision; counsel should obtain the order and request. See the EAW procedure guide and EAW and extradition comparison.

What should the family or foreign lawyer send now?

• Arrest date and place, police unit, nearest Amtsgericht named in the papers and German case numbers.
• Extradition or arrest warrant, foreign charging document or judgment, and any disclosed INTERPOL/SIS notice.
• Passport, nationality, address and family records; work or study documents and evidence of any claimed risk on surrender.
• Medical records and prescriptions if relevant, with dates and available translations.
• Details of German proceedings, asylum status, earlier extradition or a prior decision.
• Required interpretation language, counsel contacts and an instruction not to consent to simplified surrender before advice.

Hypothetical example: a Georgian national is stopped at Munich Airport after an alert linked to a third-state request. Counsel checks the detention basis, ensures timely appearance before the nearest Amtsgericht, obtains the request and contacts the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München. If detention continues, an application under §§ 23–26 IRG can challenge the warrant and propose alternatives. A constitutional complaint has its own deadline and may need an interim order.

The site’s team coordinates cross-border defence with local counsel. Send available papers for an initial assessment through the secure contact request.