Print
Download XMLAanvullend Protocol bij het Europees Verdrag betreffende uitlevering
Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren
| Partij | Voorbehoud / verklaring | Bezwaren |
|---|---|---|
| Azerbeidzjan | Ja | Nee |
| Denemarken | Ja | Nee |
| Georgië | Ja | Nee |
| Hongarije | Ja | Nee |
| IJsland | Ja | Nee |
| Luxemburg | Ja | Nee |
| Malta | Ja | Nee |
| Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der | Ja | Nee |
| Noorwegen | Ja | Nee |
| Oekraïne | Ja | Nee |
| Russische Federatie | Ja | Nee |
| Turkije | Ja | Ja |
| Zweden | Ja | Nee |
Azerbeidzjan
28-06-2002
The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it is unable to guarantee the application of the provisions of the Convention and its Additional Protocols in the territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia until these territories are liberated from that occupation.
Denemarken
13-09-1978
In accordance with Article 6.1 of the Additional Protocol, we declare not to accept Chapter I.
Georgië
15-06-2001
Georgia declares that it does not accept Chapter I of the Protocol and reserves the
right to decide, in accordance with the Chapter, on a case-by-case basis whether or
not to satisfy an extradition request.
Georgia will not be responsible for the application of the provisions of the Protocol
on the territories of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region until the full jurisdiction of
Georgia is restored over these territories.
Hongarije
13-07-1993
Since Article 6 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition
makes possible the exclusion of the totality of Chapter I or II only, Hungary declares,
that it does not accept Chapter I of the said Protocol.
Although Hungarian law is in accordance with Article 1.a and b, and does not contain
any provision contrary to subparagraph c, Hungary reserves the right to consider on
a case-by-case basis whether or not to satisfy extradition requests based on subparagraph
c.
IJsland
20-06-1984
Iceland does not accept Chapter I of the Protocol.
Luxemburg
12-09-2001
Pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 1, the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares that it does not accept Chapter II of the Additional Protocol.
Malta
20-11-2000
In accordance with Article 6 of the Protocol, Malta declares that it does not accept Chapter I of the Protocol.
Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der
12-01-1982
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares, in accordance with Article
6 of the aforementioned Protocol, that it does not accept Chapter I of the Protocol.
Although Dutch legislation is fully in accordance with Article 1 (opening words and
a. and b.) and does not contain any provisions contrary to Article 1 (opening words
and c.) in the case of acts committed during an international armed conflict, the
Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to reserve for itself the right
to refuse extradition in cases of violations of laws and customs of war which have
been committed during a non-international armed conflict.
21-07-1993
The declaration as made by the Netherlands in respect of the Additional Protocol of 15 October 1975 shall also apply to the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.
10-02-2006
On 13 June 2002, the Council of the European Union adopted a framework decision (2002/584/JHA)
on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
("the framework decision"). Article 31 of the framework decision states that, from
1 January 2004, the provisions of the framework decision shall replace the corresponding
provisions of the conventions pertaining to extradition that apply in relations between
the Member States of the European Union.
By Note of 31 August 2005, the Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
informed the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the European Convention
on Extradition, done at Paris on 13 December 1957 ("the Convention"), would no longer
be applied in relations between the part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands situated
in Europe and the Member States of the European Union that are Parties to the Convention.
Accordingly, the Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has the
honour to confirm that, in view of the foregoing, the Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Extradition ("the Additional Protocol") is likewise no longer applied
in relations between the part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands situated in Europe
and the Member States of the European Union that are Parties to the Additional Protocol.
The Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands would emphasise that
the above in no way alters the application of the Additional Protocol in relations
between :
- the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba and the Parties to the Additional Protocol, or
- the part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands situtated in Europe and the Parties to
the Additional Protocol that are not Member States of the European Union.
09-01-2012
The Protocol remains applicable in the relation between Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba) and those States with which notes have been exchanged on the extension of the Convention. The declaration as made for the Kingdom of the Netherlands on 12 January 1982 remains applicable between the States mentioned above and Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba).
Noorwegen
11-12-1986
Pursuant to Article 6, Norway declares that it does not accept Chapter I of the Protocol.
Oekraïne
11-03-1998
Although Ukrainian legislation is in accordance with Article 1, paragraphs a and b, and does not contain any provision contrary to the paragraph c, Ukraine declares that it does not accept Chapter I and reserves the right to decide, in accordance with the Chapter, on a case-by-case basis whether or not to satisfy extradition requests.
16-10-2015
In February 2014 the Russian Federation launched armed aggression against Ukraine
and occupied a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
and the city of Sevastopol, and today exercises effective control over certain districts
of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine. These actions are in gross violation
of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a threat to international peace
and security. The Russian Federation, as the Aggressor State and Occupying Power,
bears full responsibility for its actions and their consequences under international
law.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/262 of 27 March 2014 confirmed
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized
borders. The United Nations also called upon all States, international organizations
and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
In this regard, Ukraine states that from 20 February 2014 and for the period of temporary
occupation by the Russian Federation of a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol – as a result of the armed aggression
of the Russian Federation committed against Ukraine and until the complete restoration
of the constitutional law and order and effective control by Ukraine over such occupied
territory, as well as over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of
Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine as a result of the aggression
of the Russian Federation, the application and implementation by Ukraine of the obligations
under the above Conventions, Protocols, Agreement, as applied to the aforementioned
occupied and uncontrolled territory of Ukraine, is limited and is not guaranteed.
Documents or requests made or issued by the occupying authorities of the Russian Federation,
its officials at any level in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol
and by the illegal authorities in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts
of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine, are null and void
and have no legal effect regardless of whether they are presented directly or indirectly
through the authorities of the Russian Federation.
The provisions of the Conventions, Protocols, Agreement regarding the possibility
of direct communication or interaction do not apply to the territorial organs of Ukraine
in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as well as in certain
districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not
under control of Ukraine. The order of the relevant communication is determined by
the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv.
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
Russische Federatie
07-11-1996
Considering its declaration on Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition of 1957, the Russian Federation does not regard as exhaustive the list of offences contained in Article 1 of this Protocol that are not offences of a political nature.
10-12-1999
Given its statement concerning Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition of December 13, 1957 the Russian Federation does not consider the list of offences that are not "Political offences" set forth in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol of October 15, 1975 to the European Convention on Extradition of December 13, 1957, as exhaustive.
Turkije
11-07-2016
Pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 1, the Republic of Turkey declares that it does not
accept Chapter I of the Additional Protocol.
Turkey declares that its signing/ratification of the 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 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 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 Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition
(ETS No. 086), 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 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.
Bezwaar Griekenland, 01-06-2017
The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the Declaration made by the Republic
of Turkey upon ratification, on 11 July 2016, of the Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Extradition, which raises grave concerns both from a political and a
legal point of view.
This declaration is politically unacceptable to the extent that a Member State of
the United Nations and other regional organisations, such as the European Union and
the Council of Europe, is designated as defunct, contrary to the relevant decisions
and resolutions of these organisations.
Likewise, this declaration is problematic from the legal point of view in so far as
it provides that the signing/ratification by Turkey of the Additional Protocol to
the European Convention on Extradition should not imply any obligation on the part
of Turkey to enter into any dealing with the Republic of Cyprus within the framework
of the said Protocol. In fact, this statement amounts to a reservation, as it purports
to exclude the application of the Protocol in its entirety between Turkey and the
Republic of Cyprus, despite the fact that Article 6, paragraph 3, of this Protocol
mentions that no reservation may be made in respect of its provisions.
In light of the above, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the
aforesaid Turkish reservation is impermissible as it is prohibited by Article 6, paragraph
3, of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition as well as
contrary to the object and purpose of this Protocol to the extent that it prevents
the realisation of inter-State cooperation under the Protocol.
The Government of the Hellenic Republic, therefore, objects to the declaration made
by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the above Protocol.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the
Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Turkey.
Bezwaar Portugal, 07-07-2017
Opposition of the Portuguese Republic to the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey
to the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, 15 October 1975.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the declaration made by the
Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention
on Extradition.
It welcomes the ratification of the Additional Protocol by the Republic of Turkey
as a significant step for the strengthening of the protection of humanity and of individuals.
Nevertheless, the Portuguese Republic, as a European Union Member State, opposes the
declaration of the Republic of Turkey since it describes another EU Member State,
the Republic of Cyprus, as a defunct entity.
Zweden
02-02-1976
Sweden does not accept Chapter I of the said Protocol.