For individuals outside Germany, understanding how German extradition proceedings are initiated and how they unfold is an important first step in assessing your legal position.

An international search can be set in motion through several channels: the Schengen Information System (SIS), Interpol — through the issuance of a Red Notice or Diffusion — targeted requests to individual states, or, within the European Union, a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Each of these mechanisms carries different legal implications for the person concerned, and the applicable rules differ depending on the requesting state, the person’s nationality, and any bilateral extradition treaty or multilateral agreement in force between the two countries.

Once Germany receives a formal request for legal assistance, the competent German authority examines whether any legal or political reasons preclude extradition. If no such reasons are found, the matter is referred to the relevant prosecution office, which initiates a search. If the person sought is located and detained, they must be brought before a judge promptly and are entitled to legal representation from the outset. At this stage, the person may consent to simplified extradition or contest it — in which case the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) decides on admissibility. If the court declares the extradition admissible, the final decision rests with the Federal Ministry of Justice, in consultation with the Federal Foreign Office and other relevant federal authorities.

Each stage of this process offers specific grounds and legal mechanisms to challenge extradition — but the options available narrow significantly as proceedings advance. Early legal intervention is therefore critical. At Schlun & Elseven, our international extradition lawyers advise clients at every stage — from the first indication that proceedings may be initiated through to final resolution. For clients facing proceedings across multiple jurisdictions, our case management service provides structured, coordinated support to ensure that all parallel processes are tracked and responded to effectively.

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is valid across all EU member states and was introduced to facilitate cross-border judicial cooperation within the European Union. It may be issued for the purposes of prosecution or the enforcement of a custodial sentence already imposed, and obliges member states to arrest and surrender the named person to the issuing state.

If an EAW has been issued against you, or you have reason to believe one may be sought, it is strongly advisable to seek legal advice without delay. At Schlun & Elseven, our extradition lawyers have extensive experience defending clients against European Arrest Warrants. We examine the admissibility of the warrant, identify any procedural defects, and develop an individual defense strategy — including where fundamental rights violations or the political circumstances of the case are relevant. Our representation covers both national proceedings before the Higher Regional Court and cross-border matters requiring coordination across multiple jurisdictions.

The constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) is provided for under the German Constitution (Grundgesetz). It may be lodged by any person claiming that a German public authority has violated one of their fundamental rights or rights equivalent to fundamental rights (cf. Article 94(1)(4a) of the Grundgesetz). In the context of extradition proceedings, the court’s admissibility decision, the extradition itself, or the imposition of extradition detention can, in principle, be challenged by way of constitutional complaint. If the Federal Constitutional Court finds that fundamental rights have been violated, it sets aside the extradition decision and refers the matter back to the competent Higher Regional Court (OLG).

The constitutional complaint must be lodged within one month of receiving the challenged decision and must set out the grounds in writing. The time limit begins with the service of the admissibility decision.

It should be noted that the Federal Constitutional Court does not review every alleged violation of law in extradition proceedings. Its examination is limited to cases involving a specific violation of constitutionally protected rights — that is, a clear and significant violation of fundamental rights or other specific constitutional norms. Given the strict formal requirements and the complexity of the constitutional assessment involved, consulting an experienced extradition lawyer without delay is strongly recommended.

German law provides a number of specific grounds on which extradition can be declared inadmissible — regardless of the charges alleged or the requesting country. Understanding these grounds is essential for anyone facing proceedings in Germany or seeking representation from abroad.

Where a person does not consent to extradition, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) determines whether the extradition is legally admissible. Under Section 12 of the Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, IRG), extradition may proceed only if the court declares it permissible. The admissibility of extradition and the court’s assessment of it are therefore the central battleground in German extradition proceedings.

Germany’s approach to extradition is governed by a combination of domestic legislation, bilateral extradition treaties, and multilateral agreements — most importantly the Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, IRG). The specific legal framework applicable to any given case depends on the nationality of the person sought, the requesting state, and any bilateral extradition treaty or multilateral agreement in force between the two countries. For a broader overview of how international agreements shape extradition practice, see our page on the role of international treaties in extradition cases.

As a general rule, extradition from Germany is only permissible where the following conditions are satisfied: the conduct alleged must constitute a criminal offense under German law, punishable by a custodial sentence of at least one year; reciprocity must exist between the two states; and no obstacles to extradition — such as a purely politically motivated prosecution — must be present.

The position of German nationals requires particular attention. Under Article 16(2) of the Grundgesetz, the extradition of German citizens is subject to strict constraints. Extradition to EU member states, and certain international courts, is permitted under defined conditions; extradition to non-EU countries is not. For a detailed analysis of these rules, see our page on whether a German citizen can be extradited to a foreign country. Nationals of other states may be extradited from Germany, provided the applicable preconditions and minimum requirements are met.

For EU citizens, the Court of Justice of the European Union has established an important procedural safeguard through its judgment in the Petruhhin case. While an EU member state is not obliged to protect all EU citizens residing on its territory from extradition to non-EU countries, it must first notify the citizen’s home member state before proceeding. That home state has a priority right to initiate criminal proceedings domestically and to request the person’s transfer for prosecution before extradition to a third country can take place. 

In many extradition cases, an extradition arrest warrant is issued against the person sought. Once issued, it is essential to initiate legal steps without delay — in particular by filing the appropriate legal remedies. Doing so ensures that all available options are identified and pursued and may, in many cases, protect the individual’s freedom, physical integrity, and — in serious cases — their life.

A central element of extradition defense is the application to suspend the enforcement of the extradition arrest warrant — known as detention exemption or sparing of detention. Under Section 25 IRG, the Higher Regional Court may suspend the execution of the extradition arrest warrant if less restrictive measures can achieve the same purpose as detention. The court draws on the framework set out in Section 116 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO), under which such measures may include a reporting requirement, restrictions on travel or place of residence, or the provision of financial security in the form of bail.

A well-known example of detention exemption in extradition proceedings is the Puigdemont case. Catalan separatist leader Carles Puigdemont was arrested in Schleswig-Holstein in March 2018 following the issuance of a European Arrest Warrant by Spain. The Schleswig-Holstein Higher Regional Court ultimately suspended the execution of the extradition warrant, ordering instead that Puigdemont post bail and comply with conditions restricting his movement. The case illustrates both the availability of detention exemption as a legal instrument and the importance of acting quickly to apply for it once an extradition arrest warrant has been issued.

When assessing an application to suspend an extradition arrest warrant, the court weighs a range of factors — including the risk of absconding, the severity of the alleged offense, the person’s ties to Germany, and the proportionality of continued detention. At Schlun & Elseven, our extradition lawyers assess all available grounds and present a structured case for release at the earliest possible stage. 

At Schlun & Elseven, we have extensive experience representing politically persecuted individuals, including members of parliament, state and military officials, business figures, and other high-profile clients. The reasons behind political persecution are varied and extend well beyond differences in political opinion: personal disputes, power struggles, allegations of corruption, economic interests, and targeted repression can all give rise to politically motivated proceedings.

Proceedings that are solely politically motivated are inadmissible under German extradition law and incompatible with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR. Establishing the political motivation behind a prosecution is, however, rarely straightforward — which makes a close and trusted working relationship between lawyer and client particularly important. In many such cases, the question of political asylum arises: while asylum and extradition operate as distinct legal frameworks, their interaction can be significant and must be carefully assessed from the outset. Where clients are unable to enter Germany, our legal team regularly travels abroad for in-person meetings and to gather evidence.

Interpol, headquartered in Lyon, has 196 member states and is the world’s largest international police organization. Its primary function is to support national police forces through international cooperation by providing shared databases and communication platforms that member states use to coordinate cross-border criminal matters. Among the instruments available to Interpol are its Notice system and Diffusions. Notices are issued at the request of member states and disseminated to other states via Interpol’s information platforms, color-coded by purpose. A Diffusion is a more direct form of alert, sent by a member state to selected other states without passing through Interpol’s central channels.

An Interpol Red Notice is issued when a member state requests the location and provisional arrest of a person for the purpose of extradition. A national arrest warrant accompanies it and contains details of the alleged offenses, the person sought, and the anticipated maximum sentence. It is important to understand that a Red Notice does not automatically obligate member states to arrest the named person. Each state evaluates the notice independently, in accordance with its national law and any applicable bilateral extradition treaty or multilateral agreement, and decides whether to act on it.

A Red Notice nonetheless initiates an international search and, in practice, significantly restricts the freedom of movement of the person concerned. In some cases, Red Notices are issued abusively — used as instruments of political persecution or in bad faith by the requesting state. Where this is the case, specific legal grounds exist to challenge and remove the notice, as set out on our page on the misuse of Interpol Red Notices.

Where a Red Notice has already been issued, our Interpol Red Notice lawyers can assess its lawfulness and, where appropriate, initiate proceedings before the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF) to have it corrected or deleted. Where proceedings have been initiated that may lead to a Red Notice but none has yet been issued, proactive steps can be taken — see our page on the prevention of an Interpol Red Notice for further detail.

At Schlun & Elseven, our extradition lawyers are well-versed in the legal requirements and procedural processes governing Interpol requests and will manage your application from start to finish.

Upon receipt of our request, the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF) will verify whether an entry against you exists in the Interpol Information System (IIS). If such an entry is found, the Commission will assess — on the basis of the information we provide — whether it is lawful or must be corrected or deleted. Should the Commission require further information, it will request this from us, and we will keep you informed and assist in providing any additional material required. If the Commission determines that the entry must be updated or deleted, it will contact the General Secretariat (IPSG) accordingly.

Processing of a request for information by the CCF takes approximately four months. Where a correction or deletion is sought, full resolution of the matter can take nine months or longer, depending on the complexity of the case. Our extradition lawyers will remain focused on your application throughout and will pursue every available means of accelerating the process.

The Schengen Information System (SIS) is Europe’s central cross-border database for exchanging security-relevant information between Schengen area states. It is used for a range of purposes, including the search for wanted persons, the prevention of entry or residence in the Schengen area, the search for missing persons, and the seizure of objects in the context of criminal proceedings. An alert in the SIS can have immediate practical consequences — including refusal of entry at a border, seizure of a vehicle, or arrest. The SIS is therefore an essential instrument of police cooperation across Europe, and an active alert can severely restrict a person’s ability to travel or reside freely within the Schengen area.

Under certain circumstances, an alert in the SIS may be unlawful — for example, where it was entered without a legal basis or where personal data has been stored incorrectly. Where an alert is unlawful, the right to request its deletion arises. Where personal data is inaccurate, the right to rectification applies. Our extradition lawyers examine the lawfulness of SIS alerts and take decisive action to secure their correction or deletion as quickly as possible.