Print
Download XMLDerde Aanvullend Protocol bij het Europees Verdrag betreffende uitlevering
Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren
| Partij | Voorbehoud / verklaring | Bezwaren |
|---|---|---|
| Azerbeidzjan | Ja | Nee |
| Cyprus | Ja | Nee |
| Duitsland | Ja | Nee |
| Frankrijk | Ja | Nee |
| Italië | Ja | Nee |
| Letland | Ja | Nee |
| Litouwen | Ja | Nee |
| Moldavië | Ja | Nee |
| Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der | Ja | Nee |
| Oekraïne | Ja | Nee |
| Oostenrijk | Ja | Nee |
| Roemenië | Ja | Nee |
| Slovenië | Ja | Nee |
| Spanje | Ja | Nee |
| Tsjechië | Ja | Nee |
| Turkije | Ja | Ja |
| Verenigd Koninkrijk | Ja | Ja |
| Zwitserland | Ja | Nee |
Azerbeidzjan
08-01-2014
The Republic of Azerbaijan ratifies the Third Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Extradition and declares that it is unable to guarantee the implementation
of the provisions of the Protocol in its territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia
(the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan and its seven districts
surrounding that region), until the liberation of those territories from the occupation
and complete elimination of the consequences of that occupation (the schematic map
of the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan is herewith enclosed).
The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that, until the liberation of its territories
occupied by the Republic of Armenia from the occupation and complete elimination of
the consequences of that occupation, the Republic of Azerbaijan shall not cooperate
with the Republic of Armenia within the framework of the Protocol.
Cyprus
07-02-2014
In accordance with Article 5 (b) of the Third Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Extradition, the Republic of Cyprus declares that the rules laid down
in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition do not apply when the person
extradited by the Republic of Cyprus consented to her or his extradition and expressly
renounced her or his entitlement to the rule of specialty, in accordance with Article
4 of the said Additional Protocol.
Duitsland
25-05-2016
In accordance with Article 5 of the Third Additional Protocol, the Federal Republic
of Germany makes the following declarations:
Consent to the simplified procedure is independent of renunciation of entitlement
to the rule of speciality. The rules of Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition
only do not apply where the person sought consents to extradition and in addition
expressly renounces his or her entitlement to the rule of speciality.
In accordance with Article 17 (1) sentences 1 and 2 of the Third Additional Protocol,
the Federal Republic of Germany declares that, without prejudice to the aforementioned
declaration, all reservations and declarations made in respect of the Convention remain
applicable.
Frankrijk
10-06-2021
The Government of the French Republic declares, in accordance with Article 4, paragraph
5, of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition that
consent of the person sought to his or her extradition, and, where appropriate, renunciation
of entitlement to the rule of specialty, given before the French judicial authority
in accordance with French law, may be revoked at any time until the decision of the
judicial authority relating to extradition in accordance with the simplified procedure
has become final.
The Government of the French Republic declares, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph
b, of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, that
the rules laid down in Article 14 of the Convention, relating to the rule of specialty,
shall not apply to persons extradited by the French authorities where such persons,
having consented to their extradition, expressly renounces his or her entitlement
to the rule of specialty.
In replacement of the declaration contained in the instrument of ratification [of
the European Convention on Extradition] deposited on 10 February 1986, the Government
of the French Republic declares that, with regards to France, the Convention and its
second, third and fourth Additional Protocols apply to the entire territory of the
Republic.
Italië
30-08-2019
In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 4 of the Third Additional Protocol to the
European Convention on Extradition, the Italian Republic declares that the consent
and the renunciation of entitlement to the rule of speciality may be revoked in the
cases provided for in the same paragraph 5 and in compliance with the current provisions
of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code.
In accordance with article 5, paragraph 1 (b) of the Protocol, the Italian Republic
declares that the rule of speciality laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention
on Extradition does not apply where the person extradited expressly renounces his
or her entitlement to its application.
Letland
26-01-2012
In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 4 of the Third Additional Protocol to the
Convention, Latvia
declares that consent to extradition under the simplified procedure and renunciation
of entitlement to the
rule of speciality may be revoked.
In accordance with Article 5 of the Third Additional Protocol to the Convention, Latvia
declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the Convention do not apply where
the person extradited by Latvia, in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol, consents
to extradition and expressly renounces his or her entitlement to the rule of speciality.
Litouwen
02-01-2017
In accordance with Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Protocol, the Republic of Lithuania
declares that it avails itself of the right not to accept Article 2, paragraph 1,
of the Protocol.
In accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol, the Republic of Lithuania declares that
the rules laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition do not
apply where the person extradited by the Republic of Lithuania, in accordance with
Article 4 of the Protocol, consents to extradition.
In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Protocol, the Republic of Lithuania
declares that the consent to extradition under the simplified procedure may be revoked
until the competent court of the Republic of Lithuania takes its final decision on
extradition under the simplified procedure.
Moldavië
29-01-2018
In accordance with Article 5 of the Additional Protocol, the Republic of Moldova declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition do not apply when the person extradited by the Republic of Moldova consents to extradition under the simplified procedure and renounces his or her entitlement to the rule of speciality.
Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der
06-07-2012
In accordance with Article 5 of the Third Additional Protocol to the Convention, the
Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that with the application of the Protocol by the
European part of the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands
Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), the rules laid down in Article 14 of the European
Convention on Extradition do not apply.
27-06-2024
In accordance with Article 16, paragraph 2, of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it accepts the said Protocol for Curaçao.
Oekraïne
13-11-2018
In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Third Additional Protocol, Ukraine
declares that consent of a person to extradition under the simplified procedure and,
where appropriate, renunciation of a person of entitlement to the rule of speciality,
may be revoked before their authorisation by an investigative judge.
In accordance with Article 5, subparagraph b, of the Third Additional Protocol, Ukraine
declares that Article 14 of the Convention do not apply when the person extradited
by Ukraine consented to extradition and expressly renounced of entitlement to the
rule of speciality.
19-04-2022
The Permanent Representation of Ukraine to the Council of Europe presents its compliments to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and has the honour […] to inform about the impossibility to guarantee the implementation by the Ukrainian Side in full of its obligations under the above mentioned international treaties of Ukraine for the period of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine, until full termination of the infringement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of borders of Ukraine.
07-12-2023
[…]
Referring to Ukraine’s notification dated 18 April 2022 N° 31011/32-119-26603 [Council
of Europe Notification JJ9359C dated 13 May 2022] in connection with the full-scale
invasion of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, [the Government of Ukraine] further
clarif[ies] that international treaties mentioned therein are implemented on the territory
of Ukraine in full, with the exception of the territories where hostilities are (were)
conducted, or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, on which it is impossible
to fully guarantee the Ukrainian Party’s fulfillment of its obligations under the
relevant treaties as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against
Ukraine, as well as the introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine until
the complete cessation of encroachment on the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
inviolability of the borders of Ukraine.
The regularly updated list of territories where hostilities are (were) conducted,
or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation is located at the link below:
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1668-22#Text
Oostenrijk
10-04-2015
With reference to Article 5.a. of the Protocol, Austria declares that Article 14 of the Convention will not be applied, if the person extradited agrees to the extradition in accordance with Article 4 of this Protocol.
Roemenië
18-09-2017
In accordance with Article 5 of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, Romania declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition do not apply where the person extradited by the Romania consented to her or his extradition and expressly renounced his or her entitlement to the rule of speciality.
Slovenië
11-04-2014
Pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Protocol, the Republic of Slovenia declares
that the consent to extradition may be revoked until the Competent Court of the Republic
of Slovenia takes its final decision on extradition under the simplified procedure.
Pursuant to Article 5 of the Protocol, the Republic of Slovenia declares that the
rules laid down in Article 14 of the Convention do not apply where the person extradited
by the Republic of Slovenia consents its extradition and expressly renounces his or
her entitlement to the rule of speciality.
Spanje
18-12-2014
Spain declares that, in the event that the present Protocol were to be ratified by
the United Kingdom and extended to the territory of Gibraltar, Spain wishes to make
the following Statement:
1. Gibraltar is a non-autonomous territory whose international relations come under
the responsibility of the United Kingdom, and which is subject to a decolonisation
process in accordance with the relevant decisions and resolutions of the General Assembly
of the United Nations.
2. The authorities of Gibraltar have a local Administration status and exercise exclusively
internal competences which have their origin and their foundation in a distribution
and attribution of competences performed by the United Kingdom in compliance with
its internal legislation, in its capacity as sovereign State on which the mentioned
non-autonomous territory depends.
3. As a result, it is considered that the eventual participation of the Gibraltarian
authorities in the application of this Protocol will be carried out exclusively as
part of the internal competences of Gibraltar and cannot be considered to modify in
any way the declarations formulated in the two previous paragraphs.
4.- The procedure laid down in the Agreed Arrangement relating to Gibraltar Authorities
in the Context of certain International Treaties by Spain and the United Kingdom of
19 December 2007 (along with the "Agreed Arrangements relating to Gibraltar Authorities
in the Context of EU and EC Instruments and Related Treaties" of 19 April 2000) applies
to this Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition.
5. The application of the said Protocol to Gibraltar should not be interpreted as
an acknowledgment of any right or any situation regarding areas not covered by Article
X of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713, concluded between the Kingdoms of Spain
and of the Great Britain.
Tsjechië
17-01-2013
In accordance with Article 5(a), of the third additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, the Czech Republic declares that the rules laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition do not apply where the person extradited by the Czech Republic consented to the extradition, in accordance with Article 4 of the third additional Protocol.
Turkije
11-07-2016
The Republic of Turkey declares that all the documents defined in Article 12 of the
Convention need to be submitted, in cases where the simplified extradition procedure
is applied, in accordance with paragraph 1, Article 2 of the Third Additional Protocol.
In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Third Additional Protocol to the
Convention on Extradition, the Republic of Turkey declares that consent to extradition
under the simplified procedure and renunciation of entitlement to the rule of specialty
may be revoked.
In accordance with Article 5 of the Third Additional Protocol to the Convention on
Extradition, the Republic of Turkey declares that the rules laid down in Article 14
of the Convention do not apply where the person extradited by Republic of Turkey,
consents to extradition and expressly renounces his or her entitlement to the rule
of specialty.
Turkey declares that its signing/ratification of the Third Additional Protocol to
the European Convention on Extradition neither amounts to any form of recognition
of the Greek Cypriot Administration’s pretention to represent the defunct “Republic
of Cyprus” as party to the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on
Extradition, nor should it imply any obligations on the part of Turkey to enter into
any dealing with the so-called Republic of Cyprus within the framework of the said
Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition.
“The Republic of Cyprus” was founded as a Partnership State in 1960 by Greek and Turkish
Cypriots in accordance with international treaties. This partnership was destroyed
by the Greek Cypriot side when it unlawfully seized the state by forcibly ejecting
all Turkish Cypriot members in all the state organs in 1963. Eventually, Turkish Cypriots
who were excluded from the Partnership State in 1963 have organized themselves under
their territorial boundaries and exercise governmental authority, jurisdiction and
sovereignty. There is no single authority which in law or in fact is competent to
represent jointly the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots and consequently Cyprus
as a whole. Thus, the Greek Cypriots cannot claim authority, jurisdiction or sovereignty
over the Turkish Cypriots who have equal status or over the entire Island of Cyprus.
Bezwaar Cyprus, 23-01-2017
The Republic of Cyprus has examined the Declaration deposited by the Republic of Turkey
upon ratification of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition
(ETS No. 209), dated 11 July 2016 and registered at the Secretariat General of the
Council of Europe on 13 July 2016.
The Republic of Turkey declares that its ratification of the Third Additional Protocol
to the European Convention on Extradition neither amounts to any form of recognition
of the Republic of Cyprus, as party to that Protocol, nor should it imply any obligation
on the part of the Republic of Turkey to enter into any dealing with the Republic
of Cyprus within the framework of the said Protocol.
In the view of the Republic of Cyprus, the content and purported effect of this Declaration
makes it tantamount in its essence to a reservation contrary to the object and purpose
of the Protocol. By such Declaration, the Republic of Turkey purports to evade its
obligations under the Protocol vis-à-vis another equal and sovereign State Party,
namely the Republic of Cyprus. Indeed, the Declaration prevents the realization of
cooperation between State Parties foreseen by the Protocol.
The Republic of Cyprus therefore strongly rejects the aforesaid Declaration made by
the Republic of Turkey and considers such declaration to be null and void. The aforementioned
objections by the Republic of Cyprus shall not preclude the entry into force of the
Protocol, in their entirety, between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey.
Regarding the Republic of Turkey’s pretension, as expressed in the same Declaration,
that “the Republic of Cyprus is defunct and that there is no single authority which
in law or in fact is competent to represent jointly the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek
Cypriots and consequently Cyprus as a whole”, the Republic of Cyprus would like to
remind of the following:
Despite, being, through binding international agreements, a guarantor of “the independence,
territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus” (Article II of the 1960
Treaty of Guarantee), the Republic of Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus in 1974 and
continues since then occupying 36.2% of the territory of the Republic.
The illegality of such aggression was made manifested by the U.N. Security Council
Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984). Resolution 541’s operative paragraph 2 considers
“the declaration [of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of
part of the Republic of Cyprus] as legally invalid and “calls for its withdrawal”.
Paragraph 6 then “calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence,
territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus” and further at
paragraph 7 “calls upon all States not to recognize any Cypriot state other than the
Republic of Cyprus”. Resolution 550, operative para. 2, also “condemns all secessionist
actions, including the purported exchange of Ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish
Cypriot leadership, declares them illegal and invalid, and calls for their immediate
withdrawal”. Para. 3 then « reiterates the call upon all States not to recognize the
purported state of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” set up by secessionist
acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist
entity”.
The European Court of Human Rights additionally, in its Judgment of 10th May 2001
on the Fourth Interstate Application of Cyprus v. Turkey, found, at para. 77, that
Turkey, which has “effective control over northern Cyprus”, is responsible for securing
all human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and for violations
of such rights by her own soldiers or officials, or by the local administration, which
are imputable to Turkey. The responsibilities of the occupying power emanate from
international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Turkey is responsible for the policies and actions of the “TRNC” because of the effective
control she exercises through her army. Her responsibility is engaged by virtue of
the acts of the local administration, which survives by virtue of Turkish military
and other support (Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment, 10 May 2001, at pp. 20-21, reiterating
Loizidou). From the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Security
Council Resolutions on Cyprus, it is evident that the international community does
not regard the “TRNC” (Turkey’s subordinate local administration in occupied Cyprus,
condemned in the strongest terms by the Security Council ) as a State under international
law (Cyprus v. Turkey, 10 May 2001, para. 61). In contrast, the Republic of Cyprus
has repeatedly been held to be the sole legitimate Government of Cyprus, contrary
to Turkey’s assertions about that Government, which Turkey calls “the Greek Cypriot
Administration” with pretences “to represent the defunct Republic”. The Turkish assertions
constitute a propaganda ploy to divert attention from Turkey’s responsibility for
the violations in occupied Cyprus. Turkey’s assertions and her assorted objections
to the Republic of Cyprus’ authority, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and her claims
on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots and the “TRNC”, have repeatedly been rejected by
the international community and relevant judicial bodies where such claims were fully
argued and then rejected in Cyprus’s pleadings. Misrepresentations about the treatment
of Turkish Cypriots by the Government of Cyprus were made. (These claims were repeated
in Turkey’s current Declaration). In fact, the European Court of Human Rights and
the Commission accepted Cyprus arguments and refutation of Turkish assertions and
exaggerations about the period prior to Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in July 1974.
It refused to pronounce on Turkey’s version of the ejection of Turkish Cypriots from
offices of State (there was in fact a Turkish boycott).
It is now time for the relevant pronouncement in Resolutions and the decisions therein,
as well as in judgments of the European Court of Human Rights to be heard and acted
upon. The Court itself insisted in its 12 May 2014 Just Satisfaction Judgment that
this must happen once the Court had spoken (Cyprus v. Turkey, p. 23 Joint Concurring
Judgment of nine Judges). It should be emphasized that, as recently as 26 July 2016
(Security Council Resolution 2300), the Security Council reaffirmed all its relevant
Resolutions on Cyprus, having, over several decades, reiterated their content.
Nevertheless, the Republic of Turkey, not only flagrantly holds in contempt all relevant
U.N. Resolutions, International Law rules and the U.N. Charter on the matter, but
furthermore she continues violating international legality, by systematically questioning
the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus and further promoting the illegal secessionist
entity in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus, including through declarations,
as the one at hand.
Bezwaar Oostenrijk, 10-07-2017
The Government of Austria has examined the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, adopted on 10 November 2010. It welcomes the ratification of the Additional Protocol by Turkey as a significant step in simplifying and accelerating extradition procedures. However, as a member State of the European Union, Austria opposes the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey which describes another member State, the Republic of Cyprus, as a defunct entity.
Verenigd Koninkrijk
31-07-2019
[…] the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wishes the application
of the Convention to be extended to the territory of Gibraltar, for whose international
relations the United Kingdom is responsible.
The Government of the United Kingdom requests the Secretariat General of the Council
of Europe to circulate this Note to all other Contracting Parties informing them that,
pursuant to Article 27, paragraph 4, of the Convention, an arrangement giving effect
to this extension will be deemed to have been made between the United Kingdom and
each of the Contracting Parties from which the Secretariat has not received a Note
of objection within 90 days of the date of circulation.
Bezwaar Spanje, 25-10-2019
With regard to the communication that the United Kingdom addressed to the Secretariat
General of the Council of Europe on 29 July 2019, concerning the intention of the
United Kingdom to extend to Gibraltar the application of the European Convention on
Extradition (ETS No. 24), of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention
on Extradition (ETS No. 98), of the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention
on Extradition (CETS No. 209) and of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Extradition (CETS No. 212), Spain, recalling that it is a Party to the
said Convention, as well as to the Additional Protocol to the European Convention
on Extradition (ETS No. 86) and to the Second and Third Additional Protocols, makes
the following statement:
Spain desires that co-operation in this matter, made possible between Spain and the
United Kingdom by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, should also be effective
in Gibraltar. As required by Article 27, paragraph 4, of the Convention, this requires
the direct agreement of the Parties. Consequently, the Spanish authorities consider
that, under Article 27, paragraph 4, the United Kingdom must apply directly to the
Parties to seek their agreement, which must be express. States Parties should not
have received a communication from the Council of Europe’s Treaty Office, other than
a request from the United Kingdom. Reaffirming the need to follow this procedure for
future occasions, Spain responded to this communication by addressing the United Kingdom
directly, by means of a Note verbale delivered to its Embassy in Madrid on 22 October,
expressing its agreement. Spain does not accept that a territorial extension of the
Convention can take place merely by tacit acceptance.
Bezwaar Spanje, 06-05-2022
With regard to the communication that the United Kingdom addressed to the Secretariat
General of the Council of Europe on 29 July 2019, concerning the intention of the
United Kingdom to extend to Gibraltar the application of the European Convention on
Extradition (ETS No. 24), of the Second Additional Protocol thereof (ETS No. 98),
of the Third Additional Protocol thereof (CETS No. 209) and of the Fourth Additional
Protocol thereof (CETS No. 212), Spain, recalling that it is a Party to the said Convention,
as well as to the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (ETS
No. 86) and to the Second and Third Additional Protocols, makes the following statement:
- Gibraltar is a non-autonomous territory whose international relations come under
the responsibility of the United Kingdom and which is subject to a decolonisation
process in accordance with the relevant decisions and resolutions of the General Assembly
of the United Nations.
- The authorities of Gibraltar have a local character and exercise exclusively internal
competences which have their origin and their foundation in a distribution and attribution
of competences performed by the United Kingdom in compliance with its internal legislation,
in its capacity as sovereign State of which the mentioned non-autonomous territory
is dependent.
- As a result, any participation of the Gibraltarian authorities in the application
of the European Convention on Extradition and of the Protocols thereof will be understood
as carried out exclusively as part of the internal competences of Gibraltar and cannot
be considered to modify in any way what was established in the two previous paragraphs.
- The procedure foreseen in the Arrangements relating to Gibraltar authorities in
the context of certain international treaties which were adopted by Spain and the
United Kingdom on 19 December 2007 (as well as the Agreed Arrangements relating to
Gibraltar authorities in the context of EU and EC instruments and related treaties,
dated 19 April 2000), apply to this Convention and to the Protocols thereof.
- The application of this Convention to Gibraltar and of the Protocols thereof should
not be interpreted as an acknowledgment of any right or any situation regarding areas
not covered by Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713, concluded between
the Crowns of Spain and of the United Kingdom. Finally, Spain wishes to reiterate
the content of the reservations and declarations made to this date with regard to
the Convention and the Protocols thereof.
Zwitserland
15-07-2016
In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Third Additional Protocol to the
Convention on Extradition, Switzerland declares that consent to extradition under
the simplified procedure may be revoked as long as the Federal Office of Justice has
not authorised the surrender.
In accordance with Article 5.b of the Third Additional Protocol to the Convention
on Extradition, Switzerland declares that the rule of specialty laid down in Article
14 of the Convention do not apply where the person criminally prosecuted expressly
renounces his or her entitlement to the said rule.