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

Which Trabzon court and office actually hold the file?

Article 15 of Law No. 6706 allocates admissibility to the heavy criminal court where the person is found (Ankara if that location is unknown). The Trabzon directory lists Trabzon 1., 2. and 3. Ağır Ceza Mahkemeleri and Trabzon 1. and 2. Sulh Ceza Hâkimlikleri. Normally an article 14 provisional arrest is placed before a criminal judge of peace after a requesting-state request and Ministry approval; article 14(2) provides a narrow exception for strong suspicion of an offence within Penal Code article 12(3)(a), without a foreign-state request. The prosecutor refers the extradition admissibility file to the assigned heavy criminal court under article 15(2); there is no published exclusive Trabzon extradition chamber.

The Justice Palace stands in Yomra, not the old city centre. The Trabzon Bar’s 19 January 2026 room plan places the prosecutor’s front desk (savcılık ön büro) in ground-floor room 50, criminal-courts front desk in room 51, the 1st Heavy Criminal Court on floor 1 and the 2nd on floor 2. Ask for the actual docket and allocated chamber; a directory is not proof that the foreign request has arrived.

The same 19 January 2026 Trabzon Bar room plan places the 3rd Heavy Criminal Court on the fourth floor (room 472). These are public directory directions only; the actual allocation must be confirmed from the case reference.

Airport, Beşikdüzü or Sarp: which registry should be contacted?

Trabzon Airport (TZX) lies in Ortahisar around Pelitli/Konaklar. The official judicial map assigns Ortahisar, Yomra and Arsin to Trabzon Courthouse. An airport stop therefore normally prompts the first registry enquiry with the local police, Trabzon Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı and the criminal judge of peace, but a transfer or different place where the person is found can change the file path.

The judicial map sends Beşikdüzü, Çarşıbaşı and Vakfıkebir to the Vakfıkebir local courthouse, while the wider heavy-criminal judicial area points to Trabzon. For a stop in Beşikdüzü, trace the registering prosecutor at Vakfıkebir before asking whether the case moved to a Trabzon heavy criminal court.

The Sarp crossing into Georgia is in Kemalpaşa, Artvin province, not Trabzon. For an arrest there, identify the Artvin-side police/prosecutor and any documented later transfer before contacting a Trabzon judge merely because the family lives there.

The first 72 hours: practical steps, not an extradition-hearing deadline

The first 72 hours are a practical evidence-preservation checklist, not a statutory deadline for the extradition merits hearing. In the ordinary provisional-arrest route based on a requesting state’s application and Ministry approval, Law 6706 articles 14(1) and 14(3) require presentation to a sulh ceza hâkimi within 24 hours of capture. Article 14(2) is a separate, narrowly defined exception allowing action without that foreign application; its legal basis, applicable procedural safeguards and the actual judicial order must be checked separately. This initial judicial appearance does not decide extradition admissibility: the latter belongs to the ağır ceza mahkemesi.

An INTERPOL Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. Ministry Circular 184 describes the ordinary need for Central Authority approval of provisional arrest under article 14(1); however, article 14(2) is an express statutory exception for a separately established category of strong suspicion. An alert alone does not prove that exception applies. Obtain the actual Turkish arrest order, offence description and legal basis; immigration removal or an unrelated domestic arrest follows a different procedure.

Where could the person be held, and how can the family find out?

Local administration lists Trabzon E Tipi Kapalı Ceza İnfaz Kurumu in Bahçecik, Ortahisar, and Beşikdüzü T Tipi Kapalı ve Açık Ceza İnfaz Kurumu in Anbarlı, Beşikdüzü. Neither listing proves where an individual is held: a detainee may be in police custody or transferred. Confirm the location from the case authority before travelling or arranging visits or medication delivery.

Ask counsel or the registering prosecutor to confirm the actual custody institution, detainee number, visits and any transfer. Request a qualified interpreter when Turkish is not understood and a lawyer before accepting consent. The courthouse links the Baronet CMK criminal-defence appointment system; eligibility for funded representation is stage- and case-specific.

What deadlines matter after the foreign request reaches Trabzon?

For provisional detention before the full extradition request, article 14(4) defers to the applicable treaty. Article 16 of the 1957 Convention allows release where papers are missing after 18 days and bars prolonging provisional arrest beyond 40 days. Without a treaty, reciprocity-based Turkish provisional detention cannot exceed 40 days. Article 14(6) lifts provisional detention or judicial control when papers do not arrive by the applicable limit, without preventing new lawful measures after the request arrives. These are not overall extradition-detention maximum periods.

After referral, Law 6706 article 16(2) requires the heavy criminal court to review continuing extradition custody at intervals of no more than 30 days; release is not automatic on day 30. Ask for each reasoned order and the appropriate Criminal Procedure Code objection route. The first merits hearing date is case-specific, not 24 or 72 hours after the airport stop.

A separate outer limit also matters: under Law 6706 article 16(4), total detention for extradition may not exceed the executable term of punishment that the person may receive or has received for the offence underlying the request. Counsel should examine how that cap applies to the charged offence and the actual detention history; it is different from the 18/40-day provisional-arrest rules, 30-day judicial reviews and one-year post-finality trigger.

There is a further, separate deadline at the delivery stage. Under Law 6706 article 20(2), if the requesting state fails without good reason to collect the person on the agreed surrender date, court-ordered protective measures are lifted 30 days after that agreed date. This 30-day period is not the same as the article 16(2) detention-review interval; ask counsel to verify the actual agreed handover date and any justified delay before relying on it.

Which court hears a challenge: Trabzon, Yargıtay or another court?

Different decisions have different remedies. Against an article 14 provisional-arrest order, identify the competent itiraz objection forum under the Criminal Procedure Code. Against later article 16 custody decisions, apply to the authority competent for that measure. Under article 17(3), consent-based admissibility permits an itiraz, distinct from the article 18(4) temyiz for a contested judgment. The actual order and date of service determine the filing instructions; consent alone must not be mistaken for express renunciation of speciality.

Consent does not itself execute a surrender: article 17(4) requires Central Authority approval for surrender under the simplified procedure. That route and the article 17(3) objection must not be confused with contested admissibility under article 18 and the later article 19 executive decision.

For a contested extradition admissibility judgment under article 18(4), apply for temyiz to Yargıtay (Court of Cassation), not to Trabzon Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi. Yargıtay’s statutory three-month decision period is not a time limit for filing. Under CMK article 291 as amended with effect from 1 June 2024, the ordinary cassation period is two weeks from service of the reasoned judgment, subject to any applicable transitional or special rule: verify the served notice immediately. Article 16(3) also requires protective measures to be lifted if no executive extradition decision under article 19 follows within one year after finalisation of the favourable admissibility judgment; this is not a general one-year release date. In the contested route, the executive decision under amended article 19 requires the Justice Minister’s proposal, views from Foreign and Interior Ministries and presidential approval. The court’s admissibility finding does not itself authorise transfer.

If the family has documents about earlier proceedings concerning the same conduct, an international-protection claim, dependent relatives or a failure of interpretation, deliver the actual records promptly to the assigned Trabzon defence lawyer. Articles 11 and 18 of Law 6706 require a fact-specific assessment; article 18(2) permits the court to seek missing information from the requesting state, but no allegation guarantees a refusal. The separate Turkey extradition remedies guide explains the nationwide grounds for challenge.

What should a relative or foreign lawyer send to local counsel?

• The person's full name in Latin and original scripts, date of birth, citizenship(s), photograph and passport copy; note inconsistent transliteration on any foreign warrant.
• Exact apprehension location (TZX airport, Ortahisar, Beşikdüzü, Sarp in Artvin, or elsewhere), time and arresting agency; retain the first police document.
• Any Turkish detention, judicial-control, deportation or extradition decision, with date of service and case reference; keep the envelope or electronic-service proof.
• Foreign warrant, Red Notice reference if known, translations and requesting country; state whether any actual formal extradition request has been served.
• Interpreter needs; medical information relevant to safe detention; name and contact details of a consular representative if requested by the person.
• Documents showing lawful residence, dependent children or other personal circumstances only if legally relevant to the case; ask counsel which must be certified or translated.

Hypothetical example: a Georgian citizen is stopped on an international flight at Trabzon Airport after a foreign alert. The family should first verify a Turkish article 14 decision and the Trabzon prosecutor/court reference, not travel to the Sarp border office. If the same person was actually apprehended at Sarp, the first judicial enquiry instead starts in Artvin; a later transfer to Trabzon must be proved from the custody record. The location changes the first call and document search even though national extradition standards remain the same.

Does an EU arrest warrant or a treaty change the local answer?

Turkey is not an EU European Arrest Warrant state: even an EU state’s request is extradition, not EAW surrender. Turkey is party to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition (ETS 024) and the Third Additional Protocol (CETS 209; effective for Turkey 1 November 2016). For simplified extradition, Turkey has required the Convention’s article 12 papers; its CETS 209 declarations distinguish consent from an express waiver of speciality and allow revocation under stated conditions. Verify the requesting state’s treaty status and declarations rather than assuming the Protocol always applies. In Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (ECtHR Grand Chamber, 4 February 2005), ignoring an indicated Rule 39 measure breached Article 34; Article 3 was not found breached on that case’s evidence. Rule 39 is exceptional, not an ordinary Turkish appeal or an automatic stay.

For the country-wide statutory conditions and executive stages, consult the Turkey extradition procedure guide.

For further local coordination after the documents and filing court have been identified, the site's team can help coordinate cross-border defence with independently instructed Turkish counsel via the enquiry form.