European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism

Parties with reservations, declarations and objections

Party	Reservations / Declarations	Objections
Azerbaijan	Yes	No
Belgium	Yes	No
Croatia	Yes	No
Cyprus	Yes	No
Denmark	Yes	No
Estonia	Yes	No
France	Yes	No
Georgia	Yes	No
Greece	Yes	No
Hungary	Yes	No
Iceland	Yes	No
Italy	Yes	No
Malta	Yes	No
Monaco	Yes	No
Montenegro	Yes	No
Netherlands, the Kingdom of the	Yes	No
North Macedonia	Yes	No
Portugal	Yes	Yes
Russian Federation	Yes	No
San Marino	Yes	No
Serbia	Yes	No
Sweden	Yes	No
Ukraine	Yes	No

Azerbaijan

11-02-2004

The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it will be unable to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Convention in its territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia until these territories are liberated from that occupation.
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the Convention, the Republic of Azerbaijan reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers to be a political offence.

Belgium

31-10-1985

With the exception of offences committed upon the taking of hostages and other connected offences, Belgium reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence, mentioned in Article 1, which it considers to be a political offence, an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives; in these cases, Belgium undertakes to take into due consideration, when evaluating the character of the offence, its particularly serious aspects, including:
a. that it created a collective danger to the life, physical integrity or liberty of persons; or,
b. that it affected persons foreign to the motives behind it; or
c. that cruel or vicious means have been used in the commission of the offence.

Croatia

15-01-2003

In accordance with Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Croatia reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention, which it considers to be a political offence, or an offence inspired by political motives. In these cases, the Republic of Croatia undertakes to take into due consideration, when evaluating the character of the offence, any particularly serious aspects of the offence, including:
a. that it created a collective danger to the life, physical integrity or liberty of persons, or
b. that it affected persons foreign to the motives behind it, or
c. that cruel or vicious means have been used in the commission of the offence.

Cyprus

26-02-1979

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers to be a political offence.
With respect to Article 7 of the Convention and purusant to the Republic of Cyprus the Extension of Jurisdiction of National Courts with respect to certain Terrorist Offences Law of 1979 which has been enacted by the House of Representatives of the Republic of Cyprus on the 18th January 1979, the national courts of Cyprus can prosecute a person suspected to have committed an offence mentioned in Article 1 of this Convention.
The Government of the Republic of Cyprus wishes to notify that its reservations and declarations made on 22nd January 1971 when depositing its Instrument of Ratification with regard to the European Convention on Extradition of 13th December 1957 are still valid.

Denmark

27-06-1978

Provisionally, the Convention does not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland.

Estonia

27-03-1997

The Republic of Estonia, in accordance with Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and subject to the conditions thereof, reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention which it considers to be a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence.

France

27-01-1977

In deciding to sign the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism today the Government wished to demonstrate its solidarity with the other European countries in combatting a danger which has caused - and still causes - a number of innocent victims and very properly arouses public feeling.
This signature is the logical consequence of the action we have been taking for several years and which has caused us on several occasions to strengthen our internal legislation and to ratify The Hague and Montreal Conventions on air terrorism.
It is self-evident that efficiency in this struggle must be reconciled with respect for the fundamental principles of our criminal law and of our Constitution, which states in its Preamble that "Anyone persecuted on account of his action for the cause of liberty has the right to asylum on the territory of the Republic".
It is also clear that such a high degree of solidarity as is provided for in the Council of Europe Convention can only apply between States sharing the same ideals of freedom and democracy.
France will therefore subject the application of the Convention to certain conditions. On ratification it will make the reservations necessary to ensure that the considerations I have just mentioned will be taken into account and that human rights will at no time be endangered.
There is a further point of very special importance to the government: this is the success of the work of the Nine in the same field following the decisions of the European Council on 13 July 1976. We wish to avoid risks of conflict between the two texts and the government therefore does not intend to ratify the Strasbourg Convention before the instrument which will be prepared by the Nine.
Furthermore, taking action against terrorism does not absolve us from tackling the political problem of the causes of terrorism. For in many respects the real struggle against terrorism is a struggle for a just peace which guarantees everyone's legitimate rights.

21-09-1987

The Government of the French Republic declares that it reserves the right to refuse extradition in accordance with the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
France wishes to recall, in accordance with the declaration which it made at the time of signature of the Convention, on 27 January 1977, that the struggle to be carried on against terrorism must be reconciled with respect for the fundamental principles of our criminal law and our Constitution which states in its preamble that "anyone persecuted on account of his action for the cause of liberty has the right to asylum in the territories of the Republic" and that the enforcement of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism should not result in derogating from the right of asylum.
The Government of the French Republic declares that it will only apply the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism to offences committed after the date of its entry into force.
In accordance with Article 12.1 of the Convention, the Government of the French Republic declares that the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism applies to the European and overseas departments of the French Republic.

Georgia

14-12-2000

Until the full restoration of jurisdiction of Georgia over the territories of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region, Georgia will be unable to assume responsibility for the full compliance with the provisions of the Convention on these territories.

Greece

06-09-1988

In pursuance of Article 13 of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, Greece declares that it reserves the right, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the same article, to refuse extradition for any of the offences listed in Article 1 of the Convention if the person suspected of having committed the offence is being prosecuted for his or her action in favour of freedom.
Note by the Secretariat [of the Council of Europe]: The letter from the Permanent Representative of Greece reads as follows:
As expressly stated in the instrument of ratification, the aforesaid Convention was approved in Greece by Act No. 1789/1988, published in the Official Gazette No 133 of 20 June 1988 (section "A''). The authentic Greek-language text of this act is enclosed herewith. It may be seen that, after approving the Convention in the usual way, Section 1 of the act specifies that such approval is subject to the following reservation by Parliament :
In pursuance of Article 13 of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, Greece declares that it reserves the right, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the same article, to refuse extradition for any of the offences listed in Article 1 of the Convention if the person suspected of having committed the offence is being prosecuted for his or her action in favour of freedom.
It is clear that the reference, both express and general, made in our instrument of ratification to Act No. 1789/1988 applies to the whole of Section 1 of this act, which is the main provision of the act, and that it obviously covers the above-mentioned reservation. This reservation should therefore be treated as being implicitly incorporated in the instrument of ratification as an integral part of the approving act referred to therein.
Unfortunately, as a result of an error, the aforesaid reservation was not explicitly and specifically declared as such to the Council of Europe Secretariat at the time of the deposit of the instrument of ratification, as the usual practice in the matter requires.
Accordingly, in order to correct this error and thus supplement and clarify our instrument of ratification, we hereby communicate to you, in your capacity as depositary of the Convention, the text of the above- mentioned reservation, which will take effect on the date on which the Convention comes into force in respect of Greece.

Hungary

06-05-1997

The Republic of Hungary reserves its right - notwithstanding its obligation defined in Article 13, paragraph 1 - to refuse the request for extradition in respect of any offences enumerated in Article 1, if the offence is considered to be political. The Republic of Hungary shall interpret its reservation in the sense that homicide or offences involving homicide shall not be considered as political offences.

Iceland

11-07-1980

The Government of Iceland, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention and subject to the undertaking contained in that article, reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers to be a political offence, an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives.

08-12-2009

Iceland declares that the appointed central authority to carry out the functions of the Convention is:
the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights
Skuggasund
150 Reykjavik
Iceland
tel.: [phone]
fax.: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Italy

28-02-1986

Italy declares that it reserves the right to refuse extradition and mutual assistance in criminal matters in respect to any offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers to be a political offence, an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives : in this case Italy undertakes to take into due consideration, when evaluating the character of the offence, any particularly serious aspects of the offence, including:
a. that it created a collective danger to the life, physical integrity or liberty of persons; or,
b. that it affected persons foreign to the motives behind it; or,
c. that cruel or vicious means have been used in the commission of the offence.

Malta

19-03-1996

The Government of Malta ratifies this Convention subject to the provisions of the Maltese Constitution relative to extradition for offences of a political nature;
And, furthermore, declares that in accordance with the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, it reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention if it considers it to be a political offence or connected with a political offence or inspired by political motives.

Monaco

18-09-2007

The Principality of Monaco declares that it reserves itself the right to refuse extradition in conformity with the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Montenegro

15-05-2003

Pursuant to Article 13 of the Convention, [...] Montenegro reserves the right to refuse to extradite a person because of any criminal offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers a political criminal offence, as well as a criminal offence in connection with a political criminal offence or a criminal offence inspired by politicial motivation.

Netherlands, the Kingdom of the

18-04-1985

With due observance of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention including the attempt to commit or participation in one of these offences, which it considers to be a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence.

10-02-2006

With due observance of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Aruba reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention including the attempt to commit or participation in one of these offences, which it considers to be a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence.
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.
The Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore has the honour to confirm to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the provisions of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism ("the Convention") regarding extradition, in view of the above, are 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 Convention.
The Permanent Representation would emphasise that the above in no way alters the application of the Convention in relations between:
- the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba and the Parties to the Convention, or
- the part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands situtated in Europe and the Parties to the Convention that are not Member States of the European Union.
Note by the Secretariat [of the Council of Europe]: By Note of 31 August 2005, the Permanent Representation of the Netherlands informed the Secretary General 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.

09-01-2012

The reservation made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands at the time of acceptance of the Convention, on 18 April 1985, is confirmed for the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba). The reservation was confirmed for Aruba on 10 February 2006. The reservation remains valid for the European part of the Netherlands.

08-11-2023

With due observance of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Curaçao reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention including the attempt to commit or participation in one of these offences, which it considers to be a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence.

North Macedonia

29-11-2004

In accordance with Article 13 of the Convention, the Republic of Macedonia reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers to be a political offence, an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives; in these cases, the Republic of Macedonia undertakes to take into due consideration when evaluating the character of the offence, its particularly serious aspects, including that it created a collective danger to the life, physical integrity or liberty of persons or that it affected persons foreign to the motives behind it or that cruel or vicious means have been used in the commission of the offence.

Portugal

14-12-1981

As requested State, Portugal shall not grant extradition for offences punishable in the requesting State with either the death penalty, life imprisonment or a detention order involving deprivation of liberty for life.

Objection Germany, 15-12-1982

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany regards the reservation made by Portugal with regard to the European Convention on 27 January 1977 on the Suppression of Terrorism as incompatible with the meaning and purpose of the Convention. In the German view, the reservation has no basis in the Convention which is not an extradition convention, but merely restricts the possibility of raising the objection with regard to existing obligations to extradite (deriving from bilateral and multilateral arrangements), that the offence for which extradition is requested is to be regarded as a political one. Refusal for other reasons, insofar as there is a general contractual obligation to extradite, cannot be based on reservations with regard to the Convention but only on the arrangement applicable between the requesting and requested States.
The present declaration shall not be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Portugal. The German government and the Portuguese government are aware that the reservation made by Portugal will not have any de facto consequences for the practical application of the Convention between Germany and Portugal. Capital punishment has been abolished under German law. Since the entry into force of the 20th law amending penal law the suspension of a life sentence is regulated by law and justiciable. The same applies to detention orders involving deprivation of liberty. The fear on which the Portuguese reservation is based is therfore generally unfounded.

Objection Belgium, 31-10-1985

The Government of Belgium, like the Government of Germany, regards the reservation made by Portugal with regard to the European Convention of 27 January 1977 on the Suppression of Terrorism as incompatible with the meaning and purpose of the Convention. As the Government of the Federal Republic has stated, this reservation has no basis in the Convention which is not an extradition treaty. The object of the Convention is to prevent or restrict the requested State's invoking the political nature of an offence in orderto oppose an extradition request. The matter of extradition is governed, as between Belgium and Portugal, by the Convention of 8 March 1875 and additional Conventions of 16 December 1881 and 9 August 1961.
The present declaration shall not be interpreted as preventing the entry info force of the European Convention between Belgium and Portugal.

Russian Federation

04-11-2000

The Russian Federation assumes that the provisions of Article 5 and Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention shall be applied in such a way that would ensure inevitable liability for the commitment of crimes falling within the Convention, without prejudice to effective international co-operation in extradition and legal assistance matters.

25-03-2022

Depositary communication.
By the adoption of resolution CM/Res(2022)2 on the cessation of the membership of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022, at the 1428ter meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers has decided, in the context of the procedure launched under Article 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, that the Russian Federation ceased to be a member of the Council of Europe as from 16 March 2022. The legal and financial consequences are specified in Resolution CM/Res(2022)3 adopted on 23 March 2022, at the 1429bis meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

San Marino

17-04-2002

In accordance with Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of San Marino reserves its right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers to be a political offence, an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives.

Serbia

15-05-2003

Pursuant to Article 13 of the Convention, Serbia [...] reserves the right to refuse to extradite a person because of any criminal offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers a political criminal offence, as well as a criminal offence in connection with a political criminal offence or a criminal offence inspired by political motivation.

Sweden

15-09-1977

The Swedish Government, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of this Convention and subject to the undertaking contained in that article, reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers to be a political offence.

Ukraine

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