Extradition Lawyer in Szczecin: Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie and the Local Procedure

Which Szczecin institution has the file?

For a case properly allocated to the Szczecin district, the regional court’s criminal divisions are at ul. Kaszubska 42, 70-227 Szczecin. Its published building plan places III Wydział Karny (criminal division) and IV Wydział Karny Odwoławczy (criminal appeals division) there. This is an important distinction: the IV division's ordinary domestic criminal appeal function does not make it the appellate destination for an extradition or incoming EAW decision made by the regional court. Ask the court registry to confirm the assigned division and case number; the administrative listing of work involving EAWs issued in the district must not be read as proof of the allocation of every incoming warrant.

The regional court lists Biuro Obsługi Interesantów (public information desk), +48 91 44 80 002, boi@szczecin.so.gov.pl, and its criminal file reading room, Czytelnia akt, +48 91 48 38 453, czytelnia@szczecin.so.gov.pl. A lawyer can use the file number to ask which registry holds the papers and how to inspect them. The court states its Kaszubska public desk is open Monday 08:00–18:00 and Tuesday–Friday 08:00–15:00; this is a service schedule, not a court hearing timetable. A family member may be entitled to far less information than the defendant or defence counsel; giving the correct case reference usually helps more than making broad inquiries about a person's name.

What changes after an arrest at Szczecin–Goleniów Airport or the port?

Placówka Straży Granicznej w Szczecinie (the Szczecin Border Guard post), based at ul. Żołnierska 4, conducts border-control work at Szczecin–Goleniów Airport and the maritime crossings of Szczecin, Trzebież and Nowe Warpno. Its published area also includes the city, Goleniów municipality and named surrounding counties. A border officer's first involvement does not itself settle which prosecutor, court or custodial facility subsequently takes responsibility. In particular, an airport or border location is not a reliable shortcut to the person's prison address.

Ask the arresting unit whether the entry was an INTERPOL alert, a Schengen Information System alert or a warrant received through judicial channels; request the precise time and place of arrest and a copy of the detention record. An alert is not the same document as a completed extradition request or an EAW. Polish Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego, KPK) articles 605a and 607k allow specified searches or alerts to trigger arrest under distinct legal conditions. If jurisdiction is unclear because the arrest took place elsewhere in West Pomerania, have counsel check the actual court seised rather than assuming all regional cases go to Szczecin.

The first 72 hours: a practical action plan, not a single extradition deadline

The Polish Constitution, article 41(3), requires an arrested person to be put at a court's disposal within 48 hours from arrest; release is required if the relevant detention decision is not delivered within 24 hours after that handover. Those are protections against unreviewed initial custody, not a promise that a final extradition or EAW hearing occurs within 72 hours. Counsel should verify the precise legal basis of custody and whether another Polish case independently authorises detention.

In a non-EU extradition case, article 605a(2) permits up to seven days of judicial provisional arrest on a qualifying foreign database request before a formal provisional-arrest request reaches Poland; article 605(2) provides a distinct up to 40 days for the qualifying pre-extradition-request situation. Neither is an automatic entitlement to hold someone for that period. In an EAW case article 607k(3a) likewise provides a specific pre-receipt seven-day judicial detention mechanism, but only on the issuing judicial authority’s qualifying database entry; article 607k(3) separately caps aggregate EAW temporary detention at 100 days. These are different powers, not interchangeable countdowns.

Is this extradition, an EAW, or a different procedure?

A request from an EU Member State normally follows the EAW system, governed locally by KPK chapter 65b and at EU level by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (as amended). A request from a state outside that system generally requires the separate extradition analysis under KPK articles 602–605 and any applicable treaty. Poland is a party to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition. Treaty application and declarations must be checked against the particular requesting state. A German or Swedish warrant is therefore not to be processed as though it were an ordinary third-country extradition request. The UK and Norway/Iceland have distinct post-EU or separate surrender arrangements; they should not automatically be labelled EU EAW cases.

For ordinary extradition, the prosecutor presents the case to the regional court, which rules on legal admissibility under article 603. A judicial ruling that extradition is impermissible prevents delivery; if admissibility is upheld, the Minister of Justice still makes the separate executive decision on extradition. For an incoming EAW, the competent regional court rules on surrender; the ordinary extradition ministerial approval stage is not added. See the wider procedure for extradition from Poland for the nationwide steps and treaty exceptions.

Consent needs particular care. In the applicable procedures the court may record a consent to surrender or extradition, and a separate waiver of protection against prosecution for other earlier offences (the speciality rule). KPK articles 603a and 607l make some statements irrevocable. Never treat a willingness to be heard, a signature acknowledging papers or a request to return voluntarily as necessarily the same declaration. Obtain an interpreter and advice on the specific wording before giving consent.

When and where is a Szczecin court decision challenged?

KPK article 603(4) allows a complaint (zażalenie) against the regional court's extradition determination. Article 607l(3) gives a three-day period for an EAW surrender complaint, starting from announcement of the decision, or from service where a detained person was not brought to the hearing. Appeal rights concerning a temporary-arrest order exist separately under articles 605(3) and 252; a challenge to arrest is not the same as an appeal against surrender. The ordinary reviewing court for a first-instance Szczecin Regional Court criminal decision is Sąd Apelacyjny w Szczecinie, II Wydział Karny. Counsel should verify the order actually made, the correct addressee and the procedural calculation before filing.

EAW timing also differs: article 607m ordinarily targets a first-instance surrender decision within 40 days of arrest, but article 607m also sets three days after recorded consent for the first-instance decision and targets a final decision within 60 days of arrest or 10 days of consent, with a possible further 30 days in particularly justified cases. Since the amendment in force on 16 July 2026 (Dz.U. 2026/882), article 607ya also pauses or delays those clocks if a person previously extradited to Poland requires the extraditing state’s permission for onward EAW surrender. Article 607k(5)–(7) now also permits, on statutory terms, requested questioning or temporary transfer before the EAW is decided: this is not itself the final surrender ruling. These targets do not replace the three-day complaint clock and do not establish a fixed appointment time at the Szczecin courthouse. A Polish citizen, a person granted asylum in Poland or a person resident or permanently present in Poland can also have a case-specific return-to-Poland condition for a prosecution EAW under amended article 607t(1), subject to the person’s consent; it is not a general veto of surrender. Another district’s outcome offers no assurance in Szczecin. For detention conditions, the EU Court of Justice ruled in Aranyosi and Căldăraru (C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, 5 April 2016); for fair-trial independence, its later Openbaar Ministerie judgment (C-562/21 PPU and C-563/21 PPU, 22 February 2022) requires a particularised two-stage inquiry. General country-level deficiencies alone do not mandate EAW refusal. The detailed grounds and evidence belong in the Poland remedies guide.

For a serious, documented illness, the CJEU’s 2023 E.D.L. ruling (C-699/21) requires an individual risk assessment and, if appropriate, postponement and information from the issuing state; illness alone is not an automatic refusal. Its Grand Chamber ruling of 4 June 2026 in Rugu and Aucroix (C-722/23 and C-91/24) further makes clear that, where an EAW to enforce a prison sentence is refused because surrender would breach the prohibition of inhuman treatment, Poland cannot simply combine that refusal with the separate optional residence-based refusal to declare the sentence executable locally. The executing state instead must seek the judgment and certificate through the EU sentence-recognition procedure. This does not decide the outcome of an individual Szczecin case.

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

The official Areszt Śledczy w Szczecinie is at ul. Kaszubska 28, distinct from the regional court at Kaszubska 42. Its public visiting instructions give +48 91 480 92 37 and widzenia_as_szczecin@sw.gov.pl for appointments, with booking listed for weekdays 08:30–13:00 and visits ordinarily arranged on Saturdays and Sundays from 08:30 to 15:30. Registration asks for the inmate’s name, father’s name and birth date; remand visits also require the case number and type of visit. Visitors are told to arrive at least 30 minutes early. Confirm these operational hours when booking; having an appointment is not itself the legal permission for a remand visit. The prison's stated entry is the front entrance at Kaszubska 28 with officer-controlled admission.

Under article 217 of the Polish Executive Penal Code (Kodeks karny wykonawczy), a person in pre-trial detention needs a visit authorisation from the authority at whose disposal they remain; where several authorities control custody, their permissions may all be needed unless directed otherwise. For a refusal of a close-relative visit, the law identifies a complaint to the court controlling custody if a court refused, or to a superior prosecutor if the refusal came from a prosecutor. That visit-permission route is not an extradition appeal. A local lawyer's confidential defence contact follows different rules from a family visit.

Article 217(1a) of the current Executive Penal Code gives a remand prisoner, subject to paragraph 1b, at least one visit each month with a close person. Refusal of that visit is limited to a justified risk of unlawful interference with criminal proceedings or commission of an offence. Under paragraph 1d, if a refusal has been upheld on complaint, a renewed complaint against another refusal involving the same visitor within three months is inadmissible. Permission normally covers one visit only (paragraph 1g); a child needs the additional safeguards in paragraphs 1e–1f. Ask the controlling authority for the written reason before challenging any refusal.

Hypothetical example: a foreign national is stopped at Szczecin–Goleniów Airport following a non-EU database alert. Their sister calls Kaszubska 28 at once, but the person may still be in initial police custody or detained in another facility. Her effective first step is to obtain the arresting authority, time, prosecutor and custody reference through counsel. Once she knows the actual place of remand and controlling authority, she can request the required visit permission and only then arrange an appointment.

What should relatives and foreign counsel send before the next hearing?

• Identity: full name, date of birth, citizenship(s), passport details and any urgent health or accessibility needs.
• Custody trail: arrest time and location, border or police unit, remand location, detention order, next hearing notice and all reference numbers.
• Foreign documents: the actual warrant or request, issuing court, offence description, translated papers and foreign counsel's contact details.
• Specific evidence: proof of residence, family responsibilities, medical conditions or information about the requested country's legal process, as relevant and lawfully obtained.
• Instructions: whether the person has signed any consent or waiver and the exact date each decision was announced or served.

Ask counsel to arrange interpretation under KPK article 72 where necessary and to consider state-funded defence under the applicable eligibility rules; an interpreter or appointed defender is not automatically supplied simply because a relative asks at the prison gate. Use a secure channel for sensitive documents. The immediate local gain is knowing which desk, prosecutor, court registry and custodial authority to approach—not a prediction of the outcome.

For case-specific coordination, the site's team can work with properly instructed local defence counsel across borders; you may send a confidential request. This guide is general information, not individual legal advice.