Vierde Aanvullend Protocol bij het Europees Verdrag betreffende uitlevering

Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren

Partij	Voorbehoud / verklaring	Bezwaren
Azerbeidzjan	Ja	Ja
Frankrijk	Ja	Nee
Italië	Ja	Nee
Letland	Ja	Nee
Oekraïne	Ja	Nee
Oostenrijk	Ja	Nee
Russische Federatie	Ja	Nee
Slovenië	Ja	Nee
Turkije	Ja	Ja
Verenigd Koninkrijk	Ja	Nee
Zwitserland	Ja	Nee

Azerbeidzjan

15-10-2019

Reservations:
1. The Republic of Azerbaijan reserves the right not to apply the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on extradition, as amended by Article 1 of the Protocol, in circumstances described in Article 10, paragraphs 3(a) and (b), of the Convention.
2. In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the Convention on Extradition, the Republic of Azerbaijan reserves the right to require the original or authenticated copy of the request and supporting documents referred to in Article 12 and Article 14, paragraph 1.a, of the Convention.
Declarations:
1. The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that the provisions of the Protocol shall not be applied by the Republic of Azerbaijan to the Republic of Armenia.
2. The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it does not 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 these territories from the occupation and the complete elimination of the consequences of that occupation [...]
3. The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it reserves the right to amend or revoke at any time the provisions of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the present Declaration, and other Parties shall be notified in writing of any such amendments or revocations.

Bezwaar Oostenrijk, 19-10-2020

The Government of Austria has carefully examined the declarations made by the Republic of Azerbaijan upon signature of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition on 15 October 2019. Austria considers the first declaration to amount to a reservation, because it aims at generally excluding the application of the Protocol by Azerbaijan in relation to another signatory state, namely the Republic of Armenia, on a unilateral basis. This reservation is impermissible according to Article 13, paragraph 3, of the Protocol that prohibits reservations to this Protocol except for those specifically mentioned, which do not include the reservation in question. Furthermore, the reservation is contrary to the functioning of a multilateral treaty framework in general which, unless specifically provided for in the respective treaty, does not allow for the unilateral exclusion of the territory of a state that intends to become or is a State Party by another state that intends to become or is a State Party from the application of multilateral treaty obligations. Austria therefore considers the reservation to be contrary to the provisions and the object and purpose of the Protocol as a multilateral treaty. Austria objects to the aforementioned reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Azerbaijan.

10-01-2023

The Republic of Azerbaijan reserves the right not to apply the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 2, of
the European Convention on Extradition, as amended by the Protocol, in circumstances described in
Article 10, paragraphs 3(a) and (b), of the Convention.
In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the Convention on
Extradition, the Republic of Azerbaijan reserves the right to require the original or authenticated copy
of the request and supporting documents referred to in Article 12 and Article 14, paragraph 1.a, of the
Convention.
In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the Convention on
Extradition, the Republic of Azerbaijan declares that the competent authorities, that are designated in
accordance with Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Convention as amended by the Protocol, shall be the
Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic
of Azerbaijan.
The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that the provisions of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the
Convention on Extradition will not be applied by the Republic of Azerbaijan in relation to the Republic
of Armenia until the consequences of the conflict are completely eliminated and relations between the
Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan are normalized.

Frankrijk

10-06-2021

The Government of the French Republic declares, in accordance with Article 1, paragraph 3.a, of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition that it will not apply Article 1, paragraph 2, when the request for extradition is based on offences for which the French courts would have jurisdiction under French law.
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 of Article 10, paragraph 3, of the European Convention on Extradition, as amended by Article 1 of the Fourth Additional Protocol, the Italian Republic reserves the right not to apply article 10, paragraph 2, when the request for extradition is based on offences for which Italy has jurisdiction under its own criminal law.
In accordance with article 21, paragraph 5, of the European Convention on Extradition, as amended by Article 5 of the Protocol, the Italian Republic reserves the right to grant transit of a person only on the same conditions on which it grants extradition.

Letland

24-02-2014

In accordance with Article 1 of the Fourth Additional Protocol, and Article 10, paragraph 3, of the Convention as amended by the Fourth Additional Protocol, the Republic of Latvia reserves the right not to apply Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention in the case foreseen in subparagraph b, paragraph 3 of Article 10 of the Convention as amended by Article 1 of the Fourth Additional Protocol.
In accordance with Article 3 of the Fourth Additional Protocol, and Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention as amended by the Fourth Additional Protocol, the Republic of Latvia declares that the requesting Party which has made the same declaration may restrict the personal freedom of the extradited person for any offence committed prior to his or her surrender other than that for which the person was extradited, if a requesting Party submits a request for consent in accordance with Article 14, paragraph 1.a, of the Convention as amended by the Fourth Additional Protocol, and pursuant to the provisions of Article 14, paragraphs 3.a and b, of the Convention as amended by the Fourth Additional Protocol.

Oekraïne

13-11-2018

In accordance with Article 21, paragraph 5, of the Convention, as amended by Article 5 of the Fourth Additional Protocol, Ukraine allows transit of an extradited person through its territory on all of the conditions on which it grants extradition.
In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Fourth Additional Protocol, Ukraine declares that, for the purposes of Article 12 and Article 14, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention, as amended by this Protocol, Ukraine reserves the right to require the original request and authenticated copies of supporting documents.
In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Fourth Additional Protocol, Ukraine declares that the competent authorities, that are designated in accordance with Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Convention as amended by this Protocol, shall be the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine (in case of extradition of a person during court proceedings or execution of a sentence) and the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine (in case of extradition of a person during pre-trial investigation).

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

01-02-2016

In accordance with Article 10, paragraph 3, of the Convention, as replaced by Article 1 of the Fourth Additional Protocol, the Government of the Republic of Austria declares that it reserves the right not to apply Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention when the request for extradition is based on offences for which it has jurisdiction under its own criminal law and the punishment of the person claimed would be statute-barred according to its law.
In accordance with Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention, as replaced by Article 3 of the Fourth Additional Protocol, the Government of the Republic of Austria declares that a requesting Party which has made the same declaration may restrict the personal freedom of an extradited person in the circumstances set out in Article 14, paragraph 3, subparagraphs a and b, as replaced.

Russische Federatie

29-05-2017

The Russian Federation reserves the right not to apply the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Extradition, as amended by Article 1 of the Protocol, in circumstances described in Article10, paragraphs 3(a) and (b), of the Convention.
Pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Protocol, for the purposes of Article 12 and Article 14, paragraph 1(a), of the European Convention on Extradition, as amended by Articles 2 and 3 of the Protocol, the Russian Federation reserves the right to require the original or authenticated copy of the extradition request and supporting documents.
Pursuant to Article 21 of the European Convention on Extradition, as amended by Article 5 of the Protocol, the Russian Federation reserves the right to grant transit of an extradited person on some or all conditions, established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on extradition.

Slovenië

03-06-2015

Pursuant to Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention, as replaced by Article 3 of the Fourth Additional Protocol, the Republic of Slovenia declares that it will apply Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention, as replaced, in relation to other State Parties, which have made the same declaration.

Turkije

11-07-2016

With regard to Article 1 of the Fourth Additional Protocol, when Turkey is the requested Party for extradition, it shall not accept the requests barred by the statute of limitation in accordance with Turkish law.
Turkey declares that its signing/ratification of the Fourth 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 Fourth 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 Fourth 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.

Objection Cyprus (23-01-2017) to the declaration of Turkey above:
The Republic of Cyprus has examined the Declaration deposited by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (CETS No. 212), 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 Fourth 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.
The Republic of Cyprus is not a State Party to the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition. However, 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. 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.
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, 11-07-2017

The Government of Austria has examined the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, adopted on 20 September 2012. It welcomes the ratification of the Additional Protocol by Turkey as a significant step for cooperation in 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

23-09-2014

In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Fourth Additional Protocol, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland declares that, for the purpose of Article 12 and Article 14, paragraph 1.a, of the Convention, it reserves the right to require the original or authenticated copy of a request and supporting documents.
In accordance with Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Convention, as replaced by Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Fourth Additional Protocol, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland designates the Home Office as its competent authority for the purpose of sending and receiving requests for extradition.
In accordance with Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention, as replaced by Article 3 of the Fourth Additional Protocol, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland declares that a requesting Party may restrict the personal freedom of an extradited person in the circumstances set out in Article 14, paragraph 3, as replaced.

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.

Zwitserland

15-07-2016

In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the Convention on Extradition, Switzerland reserves the right to require the original or authenticated copy of the request and supporting documents referred to in Article 12 and Article 14, paragraph 1.a, of the Convention.
In accordance with Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the Convention on Extradition, Switzerland declares that, by derogation from Article 14 of the Convention, a requesting Party which has made the same declaration may restrict the personal freedom of the extradited person, if it addresses to Switzerland a request pursuant to paragraph 1.a, either at the same time as the request for consent pursuant to paragraph 1.a, or later, and that Switzerland explicitly acknowledges receipt of this notification.