Reservations and Declarations for Treaty No.209 - Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition

Declarations in force as of today
Status as of 28/04/2017

Austria

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 10 April 2015 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/08/2015 -
Articles concerned : 14, 4, 5


Azerbaijan

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 8 January 2014 - Or. Engl.

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 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. (the schematic map of the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan is available here).
Period covered: 01/05/2014 -
Articles concerned : -


Cyprus

Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Cyprus, dated 6 February 2014, deposited with the instrument of ratification, on 7 February 2014 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/06/2014 -
Articles concerned : 14, 5

Objection contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Cyprus, dated 6 December 2016, registered at the Secretariat General on 23 January 2017 - Or. Engl.

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 par. 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.
Period covered: 23/01/2017 -
Articles concerned : -


Czech Republic

Declaration accompanying the instrument of ratification deposited on 17 January 2013 Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/05/2013 -
Articles concerned : 4, 5


Germany

Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Germany, dated 20 May 2016, deposited with the instrument of ratification on 25 May 2016 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/09/2016 -
Articles concerned : 5

Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Germany, dated 20 May 2016, deposited with the instrument of ratification on 25 May 2016 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/09/2016 -
Articles concerned : 17


Latvia

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 26 January 2012 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/05/2012 -
Articles concerned : 4

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 26 January 2012 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/05/2012 -
Articles concerned : 4, 5


Lithuania

Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 2 January 2017 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/05/2017 -
Articles concerned : 17

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 2 January 2017 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/05/2017 -
Articles concerned : 5

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 2 January 2017 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/05/2017 -
Articles concerned : 4


Netherlands

Declaration contained in the instrument of acceptance deposited on 6 July 2012 – Or. Engl.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the Protocol for the European part of the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba)
Period covered: 01/11/2012 -
Articles concerned : 16

Declaration contained in a Note verbale from the Permanent Representation of the Netherlands deposited with the instrument of acceptance on 6 July 2012 – Or. Engl.

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 concention on Extradition do not apply.
Period covered: 01/11/2012 -
Articles concerned : 14


Slovenia

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 11 April 2014 Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/08/2014 -
Articles concerned : 4

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 11 April 2014 Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/08/2014 -
Articles concerned : 5


Spain

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 18 December 2014 - Or. Fr.

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.
Period covered: 01/04/2015 -
Articles concerned : -


Switzerland

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 15 July 2016 - Or. Fr.

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.
Period covered: 01/11/2016 -
Articles concerned : 4

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 15 July 2016 - Or. Fr.

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.
Period covered: 01/11/2016 -
Articles concerned : 5


Turkey

Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 11 July 2016 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/11/2016 -
Articles concerned : 2

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 11 July 2016 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/11/2016 -
Articles concerned : 4

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 11 July 2016 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/11/2016 -
Articles concerned : 5

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 11 July 2016 - Or. Engl.

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.
Period covered: 01/11/2016 -
Articles concerned : -


Source : Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int - * Disclaimer.