Transfer of a Criminal Investigation or Prosecution to or from Turkey: Law No. 6706 and International Proceedings Transfer

1. Transfer of proceedings moves the criminal case, not the person

Extradition is about surrender of a person. Mutual legal assistance is about performing evidence or procedural acts for another state. Proceedings transfer instead asks another state to assume responsibility for investigating or prosecuting the underlying offence.

The mechanism can be useful where the suspect permanently lives in another state, most evidence is there or enforcement would otherwise be ineffective.

It should not be confused with merely sending a copy of the file abroad.

2. The legal basis combines Law No. 6706 and international instruments

Türkiye uses Law No. 6706 together with bilateral and multilateral treaties. Where no treaty exists, reciprocity and international practice can be relevant.

The applicable instrument determines conditions and effects.

The Ministry of Justice reviews and transmits the state-to-state request.

3. A Turkish investigation can be transferred abroad where the legal framework permits

A Turkish prosecutor may have jurisdiction but practical prosecution abroad can be more effective because the suspect, witnesses or assets are concentrated in the other state.

The Turkish judicial authority prepares a file explaining facts, legal classification, procedural stage and evidence.

The transfer request must be reasoned and should explain why foreign assumption serves criminal justice.

4. Türkiye can accept proceedings started abroad

A foreign state can ask Turkish authorities to assume an investigation or prosecution where Turkish jurisdiction and cooperation conditions exist.

Turkish authorities evaluate the conduct under Turkish criminal law and the applicable cooperation instrument.

Acceptance does not mean the foreign legal classification automatically controls the Turkish prosecution.

5. Turkish criminal jurisdiction must exist for Türkiye to prosecute

The Turkish Penal Code rules on territorial, nationality, victim and protective jurisdiction determine whether Turkish authorities can lawfully prosecute.

A transfer request cannot manufacture Turkish criminal jurisdiction where none exists.

Jurisdiction analysis should therefore precede acceptance.

6. Double criminality can be required

Treaties can require that the conduct constitute an offence in both states. The factual conduct, not merely the offence label, is compared.

Differences in penalty or offence title do not necessarily defeat the test.

The request should contain a precise factual description.

7. The evidentiary file must be capable of continued use

Statements, forensic reports, digital records and official documents should be transmitted in a form permitting the receiving authority to assess admissibility and authenticity.

Translations are critical.

Evidence obtained unlawfully under the receiving state’s standards can create problems.

8. Parallel proceedings should be coordinated

Two states investigating the same conduct can create duplication, conflicting measures and ne bis in idem concerns.

Proceedings transfer can concentrate the case in the state best placed to prosecute.

Authorities should record what happens to the original proceeding after transfer.

9. A suspect living abroad is a common practical reason for transfer

If extradition is unavailable because the state does not extradite its nationals, proceedings transfer can sometimes provide an alternative route to accountability.

The requested state can prosecute its own national using the transferred evidence where its law permits.

This is not guaranteed and depends on the applicable treaty.

10. Victim interests remain relevant

Victims can provide evidence and ask Turkish authorities to pursue international cooperation, but the state controls the transfer decision.

The victim should be informed about which state will continue the case where procedural law provides.

Civil compensation routes may need separate action.

11. Limitation periods must be checked in both systems

Delay in deciding transfer can risk limitation. The request should identify offence dates and suspension/interruption events.

Treaties can contain provisions dealing with the effect of proceedings performed in the transferring state.

Do not assume one state’s limitation automatically stops the other’s.

12. The Ministry of Justice is the central authority

The Directorate General for Foreign Relations and EU Affairs coordinates the international file.

Judicial authorities create the substantive request, while the Ministry handles international transmission and review.

Private counsel cannot unilaterally transfer a public prosecution.

13. Treaty conditions are country-specific

Some states are connected through the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters or bilateral agreements; others use different instruments.

The exact treaty should be identified for the requested country.

Country-specific declarations can affect procedure.

14. The requested state can refuse

Refusal can arise from lack of jurisdiction, limitation, insufficient seriousness, double jeopardy, political/military offence issues or other treaty grounds.

The refusal reason should be obtained before another strategy is chosen.

Extradition or MLA can remain alternatives.

15. Transfer changes which state conducts the future prosecution

Once accepted, the receiving state applies its own procedural and substantive criminal law subject to the treaty.

The transferring state should not continue duplicative prosecution contrary to the legal arrangement.

Final decisions can later affect the other state through ne bis in idem or recognition rules.

16. Defence rights continue in the receiving state

The suspect must be able to know the allegation, use counsel, challenge evidence and receive interpretation under the receiving state’s law.

Foreign evidence should be disclosed within the applicable defence framework.

A transfer should not be used to circumvent fundamental fair-trial protections.

17. Translation quality can determine whether the case is usable

Offence descriptions, witness statements and forensic conclusions should be translated consistently.

Names and dates must match identity records.

Where a translation is disputed, the original should remain in the file.

Conclusion

Transfer of criminal proceedings is a specialised state-to-state tool for choosing the more effective forum for prosecution. It should be considered alongside extradition and mutual legal assistance rather than confused with them.