Constitutional Complaint to Stop Extradition in Germany

By Dr. Julius Hagen, Attorney-at-Law

Constitutional Protection Against Extradition Decisions

Once extradition has been declared admissible, a constitutional complaint is often the last remaining chance to prevent surrender.

Unlike ordinary criminal proceedings, extradition decisions of the Higher Regional Courts are generally not subject to ordinary appeal or revision. The original extradition material therefore describes the constitutional complaint as the final opportunity to stop extradition.

A constitutional complaint is not, however, an ordinary appeal and not a new factual instance. The Federal Constitutional Court does not review every legal error. It examines whether there has been a violation of specific constitutional law.

When can a constitutional complaint against extradition be relevant?

A constitutional complaint typically becomes relevant once the Higher Regional Court has finally declared extradition admissible. At that stage, ordinary judicial remedies are usually unavailable or severely limited. The decisive question then is whether the challenged decision violates fundamental rights or other constitutional guarantees.

Why constitutional complaints in extradition matters require particular care

A constitutional complaint in extradition matters must be drafted with particular precision. Special care is required because not every error in extradition proceedings can be challenged constitutionally.

The complaint must therefore identify exactly where the specific constitutional violation lies and why the challenged court decision caused that violation.

Why interim relief is often even more important than the complaint itself

In practice, filing a constitutional complaint alone is often not enough. If surrender is imminent, it is usually also necessary to apply for an interim order under Section 32 BVerfGG. The reason is practical and immediate: even a well-founded constitutional complaint may be useless if the surrender has already taken place and irreversible facts have been created.

When a constitutional complaint should be examined particularly carefully

A constitutional complaint deserves especially urgent review where the Higher Regional Court has already declared extradition admissible, where the case is based on a European Arrest Warrant, where serious human-rights or health-related risks are involved, or where the court failed to deal properly with decisive objections.

It should also be reviewed immediately where important facts were not fully taken into account in the earlier proceedings and it must be assessed whether additional steps within the extradition proceedings are still possible alongside the preparation of constitutional relief. That close connection between renewed submissions and later constitutional review is clearly reflected in the original material.

When Immediate Constitutional Interim Relief Should Be Considered

Immediate legal action is particularly necessary where the Higher Regional Court has already declared extradition admissible, where surrender is imminent, or where serious human-rights-based or health-related objections must be framed as constitutional violations and protected through urgent interim relief at the same time.