Extradition Lawyer in Germany - Extradition detention order revoked

January 2026 – A few weeks ago, two of our clients were released from extradition detention. In an extradition proceeding in Düsseldorf (GenStA 4 AuslA 223/25), we demonstrated alternatives to extradition; in Munich (1 OAus 219/25), an asylum decision from France helped the client secure the revocation of the extradition detention order and, later, the termination of the extradition proceedings.

However, for the duration of extradition proceedings in Germany, most “persecuted individuals” are held here in extradition detention. The legal requirements for this can be found in Sections 15 and 16 of the German Act on International Legal Assistance (IRG). Extradition detention is ordered if the Higher Regional Court deems there to be a risk that the person facing prosecution will evade extradition if extradition detention is not ordered. German Higher Regional Courts almost always take this view when someone is arrested here on the basis of an international arrest warrant. Therefore, in “normal cases,” pretrial detention is initially ordered following arrest, and it takes a great deal to change the detainee’s detention status at short notice. This is not impossible, but it requires significant effort.

Lawyer reporting on requirements and bail in extradition proceedings in Germany

Under § 25 of the Extradition Act (IRG), the Higher Regional Court in Germany may also suspend the execution of an extradition detention order if less restrictive measures are sufficient to ensure that the purpose of the extradition detention is achieved through those measures. This means that the “person sought” must even be released from extradition custody if it is ensured that appropriate conditions guarantee that he or she will remain available for the extradition proceedings.

The most common conditions include the surrender of identity documents and travel documents, weekly to daily reporting requirements to the police, and the posting of bail. Such measures strengthen the person who is the subject of the proceedings’ personal and social ties and may, under certain circumstances, allow for the suspension of the execution of the extradition detention order.

The linchpin of the extradition detention order, however, is the “risk of flight”—that is, the risk that the person being prosecuted will evade the jurisdiction of the German courts if extradition detention is not ordered. The key to a successful defense is to eliminate the risk of flight, which cannot be based solely on the court’s assumption that a severe sentence is likely in the prosecuting country.

This is also the subject of the Federal Constitutional Court decision I brought about earlier last year, 2025 (Decision of Jan. 23,2025 – 2 BvR 5/25). The case involved a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Court of Naples, Italy, and the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that even arrest warrants from other EU member states cannot automatically be enforced in Germany through pretrial detention pending extradition. The conflict between an individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty and the exchange of legal assistance between states must always be taken into account. The courts in Germany responsible for detention matters must thoroughly examine the requirements for the enforcement of detention—even in cases involving European arrest warrants—and provide appropriate reasoning for their decisions. If they are unable to do so, the pretrial detention must be lifted immediately.

However, surrendering identification documents, weekly or daily reporting requirements to the police, and posting bail are only one approach to avoiding pretrial detention pending extradition in Germany.

Extradition Lawyer in Germany on his view ....

In my view, the most important strategy against pretrial detention pending extradition is now the defense of the case itself. Key terms are extradition treaty and obstacle to extradition. The defense must demonstrate to the Higher Regional Court that, at the conclusion of the proceedings, extradition to the requesting state is in fact out of the question. In the many cases in which I have succeeded in securing relief from pretrial detention pending extradition, the Higher Regional Court ultimately never ruled that extradition was permissible. And the closer the Higher Regional Court comes to the realization that, at the end of the proceedings, extradition to the prosecuting state is in fact out of the question, the closer the person facing extradition comes to securing an early suspension of the extradition detention order.

Extradition Lawyer in Germany files Constitutional Complaint against extradition

The revocation of the extradition detention order is ultimately always based on the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, which does not tolerate violations of fundamental rights in detention cases. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court from January 2025 is instructive. Following our constitutional complaint, two detention orders issued by the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court on December 17, 2024, and January 3, 2025, were overturned. In the German legal press (including the discussion of the decision in NJW-Spezial 2025, 121), this ruling was met with widespread approval; in it, Germany’s highest court also emphasized the constitutionally required depth of reasoning in detention decisions—a point I had highlighted in my brief—as well as the issue of proportionality.

Finally: There is no such thing as the “best” lawyer for extradition law, but there is the best lawyer for your case—and that’s the one you need to find, whoever that may be. Always consult a specialist lawyer. An INTERPOL “Red Notice” does not …

Extradition Lawyer in Germany against INTERPOL

… always—and certainly not automatically—lead to the extradition of the person being sought. It is true that extradition proceedings must be understood as part of a global system of mutual extradition, in which all participating states are committed to a mutually functional extradition system. INTERPOL has 196 member states—that is, nearly the entire world—and all members want to keep the system of mutual extradition running; therefore, they almost never generally refuse extradition to a specific state, no matter how poor the human rights situation there may be. This is also one reason why successful defenses against extradition often take a relatively long time. This is because extradition is almost always denied only in case-by-case decisions by courts, so that courts never have to make a general declaration that they will no longer extradite to that requesting state at all. Success in extradition proceedings requires that the defense attorney knows the system inside and out—particularly the grounds for refusing extradition based on fundamental rights—and can raise promising objections in each individual case.