How Law 5275/2026 Changes Extradition, Detention and EAW Practice in Greece, What Defendants and Counsel Must Know

Greece’s extradition law landscape shifted materially in February 2026 when Law 5275/2026 entered force, overhauling the country’s immigration code, criminalising categories of illegal stay that were previously treated as administrative infractions, and introducing accelerated detention-and-return procedures. For defence counsel, in-house legal teams and defendants themselves, the reform creates new intersections between immigration enforcement and criminal surrender that did not exist under the prior regime. This article provides a forensic, practice-oriented analysis of how extradition and immigration now collide in Greece, maps the procedural timelines and defence levers available under the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 436–456) and the European Arrest Warrant framework, and delivers an actionable checklist that practitioners can deploy from the moment of first instruction.

Executive Summary, Key Points Counsel Must Know About Extradition Law in Greece After Law 5275/2026

The following points capture the most urgent implications of the 2026 migration reform for extradition and European Arrest Warrant (EAW) practice in Greece. Counsel should treat these as a triage framework.

• New criminal exposure from immigration conduct. Law 5275/2026 elevates certain immigration violations, particularly repeated or aggravated illegal stay, from administrative infractions to criminal offences carrying custodial sentences. This expansion means that conduct which previously fell outside the extradition framework may now satisfy dual-criminality thresholds under the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 436–456) and the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant.
• Parallel enforcement creates procedural collisions. A suspect may simultaneously face administrative removal proceedings under the new immigration code and criminal surrender proceedings under an EAW or bilateral extradition treaty. The sequencing of these parallel tracks, and which authority acts first, can determine whether a defendant is removed, detained or surrendered.
• Three primary defence levers remain available. First, counsel can challenge the dual-criminality basis where the requesting state’s offence does not correspond to the newly criminalised Greek conduct. Second, counsel can seek suspensive measures to prevent surrender while administrative appeals (residence-permit or asylum-related) remain pending. Third, urgent human-rights applications under ECHR Rule 39 remain a viable last-resort mechanism where surrender would expose the defendant to a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 3 or 8 of the Convention.
• Detention timelines have accelerated. The new law introduces compressed timeframes for immigration detention decisions, which may interact with the statutory deadlines for EAW execution. Counsel must act within days, not weeks, to preserve procedural rights.

Background, Law 5275/2026 at a Glance

Statutory Scope and Key Dates

Law 5275/2026 was published in the Greek Official Gazette (FEK) in February 2026. It transposes, among other instruments, elements of Directive (EU) 2024/1233 concerning the single-permit procedure for third-country nationals and updates the domestic immigration code comprehensively. The law applies to all third-country nationals present in Greek territory and to Greek and EU entities that employ, house or facilitate their stay.

Major Changes Relevant to Criminal and Immigration Enforcement

Law 5275/2026 introduces several changes that alter the criminal-enforcement landscape for foreign nationals in Greece. The most consequential for extradition law in Greece are summarised below.

Criminalisation of illegal stay. Under the prior regime, illegal stay was predominantly an administrative matter leading to fines, return decisions or voluntary-departure notices. Law 5275/2026 introduces custodial penalties for aggravated or repeated illegal stay, meaning that a third-country national who re-enters Greece after a deportation order, or who remains without authorisation for a specified period in certain circumstances, may now face criminal prosecution. This shift has direct implications for dual criminality in extradition and EAW proceedings.

Single-permit procedure. The law consolidates residence and work-permit applications into a single administrative process, transposing Directive (EU) 2024/1233. While this streamlines lawful migration, it also creates a binary outcome, approved or refused, that may leave applicants in a precarious status gap during processing, exposing them to potential criminal liability if the application is rejected and they remain.

Accelerated detention and return. Law 5275/2026 introduces compressed timeframes for pre-removal detention decisions and return procedures, aligning with EU Return Directive standards but with shorter internal processing windows. For counsel handling extradition and immigration in Greece, the practical consequence is that a client may be detained on immigration grounds before an EAW is even produced, creating overlapping detention clocks.

Extradition Law and EAWs in Greece, Legal Framework and Practice

Greece’s domestic extradition procedure is governed by Articles 436–456 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). These provisions regulate both treaty-based extradition (bilateral or multilateral) and the execution of European Arrest Warrants within the EU mutual-recognition framework established by Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.

The core principles of extradition law in Greece include the following:

• Double (dual) criminality. The offence underlying a surrender request must constitute a criminal offence under Greek law. For EAWs, the 32-category list offences in the Framework Decision dispense with the dual-criminality check, but offences outside that list still require verification against the Greek Penal Code.
• Citizenship bar. The Greek Constitution and CCP have traditionally restricted the extradition of Greek nationals. For EU Member State requests via EAW, this bar is modulated, surrender of Greek nationals is permissible under certain conditions, including guarantees of return to serve any sentence in Greece.
• Specialty rule. A surrendered person may only be prosecuted or sentenced for the offence specified in the warrant, unless the executing state consents to an extension.
• Proportionality and human-rights refusal. Greek courts may refuse surrender where execution would violate fundamental rights, including ECHR Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment), 6 (fair trial) and 8 (private and family life).

European Arrest Warrant Specifics in Greek Practice

When Greece acts as the executing state for a European Arrest Warrant, the competent authority is the judicial council of the Court of Appeal in the district where the requested person is located. The Framework Decision requires a final surrender decision within 60 days of arrest, extendable to 90 days in exceptional circumstances. In practice, Greek courts have occasionally exceeded these timelines, particularly where human-rights objections or parallel proceedings are raised.

The requested person has the right to consent to surrender, which shortens the process to approximately ten days. Where consent is not given, a full hearing takes place, and the decision is subject to appeal. Industry observers expect that the increased volume of immigration-related criminal matters arising from Law 5275/2026 will place additional pressure on these timelines.

How Law 5275/2026 Interacts with Extradition, Surrender and EAW Execution

The most significant consequence of the 2026 migration reform for extradition law in Greece is the creation of new criminal conduct that may form the basis of surrender requests, or complicate existing ones. The interplay falls into three broad scenarios.

Scenario Analysis

Scenario 1: EAW for an ordinary criminal offence where the suspect also faces an illegal-stay charge. A third-country national is arrested on a European Arrest Warrant issued for fraud by another EU Member State. At the time of arrest, Greek authorities discover that the individual has been residing illegally and is now subject to criminal prosecution under Law 5275/2026. Defence counsel faces a dual front: the EAW surrender hearing and a domestic criminal prosecution. The pending Greek charges may provide grounds to postpone surrender under Article 24 of the Framework Decision, which permits deferral where the requested person is being prosecuted in the executing state for a different offence.

Scenario 2: EAW based primarily on an immigration offence. An EU Member State issues an EAW for facilitation of illegal entry, an offence that now carries enhanced penalties in Greece under Law 5275/2026. Because facilitation offences generally fall within the 32-category list (as a form of organised crime or people smuggling), dual-criminality verification may be dispensed with. However, defence counsel can argue proportionality: if the underlying conduct involved humanitarian assistance rather than commercial smuggling, surrender may be disproportionate.

Scenario 3: Requesting state seeks surrender while Greek authorities pursue administrative removal. Here, two enforcement tracks run simultaneously, one criminal (the EAW) and one administrative (a return decision under Law 5275/2026). If the Greek immigration authority executes a removal order before the EAW hearing, the suspect may be physically transferred to a third country rather than surrendered to the requesting state. Conversely, if the EAW process concludes first, the suspect is surrendered and the removal order becomes moot. Timing is everything.

Detention Pending Extradition and New Detention Triggers Under Law 5275/2026

Detention pending extradition in Greece is governed by the CCP extradition provisions and, for EAW cases, by the Framework Decision’s requirements. A requested person may be held in pre-surrender detention from the moment of arrest, subject to judicial review. The maximum period of pre-surrender detention is generally aligned with the 60/90-day surrender-decision timeline, although extensions have occurred where appeals are pursued.

Law 5275/2026 introduces a parallel detention regime for immigration purposes. Under the new law, third-country nationals subject to return decisions may be detained in administrative detention facilities for compressed review periods. Where a suspect is simultaneously subject to both immigration detention and pre-surrender detention under an EAW, the legal basis for detention must be clearly identified, failure to do so may create a viable habeas-type challenge.

Bail in EAW cases is theoretically available but rarely granted in Greek practice, particularly where there is a flight risk. The new immigration detention triggers may, paradoxically, work in the defendant’s favour: if the individual is already in immigration detention and can demonstrate compliance with reporting obligations, counsel may argue that the additional restraint of pre-surrender detention is unnecessary and disproportionate.

How to Challenge Detention

Defence counsel should consider the following routes when challenging detention pending extradition in Greece:

1. Judicial review before the competent court. Apply to the judicial council of the Court of Appeal for release or conditional bail, arguing that detention is disproportionate given the nature of the offence and the defendant’s ties to Greece.
2. Appeal to the appellate court. If the initial detention decision is upheld, pursue an appeal within the statutory time limit, emphasising any procedural irregularities in the arrest or detention order.
3. ECHR Rule 39 application. Where surrender would expose the defendant to a real risk of inhuman treatment or where detention conditions themselves violate Article 3, an urgent interim-measures application to the European Court of Human Rights may suspend the surrender process. The ECHR has granted such measures in extradition contexts, though relief is exceptional and requires strong prima facie evidence.

Immigration Offences as Extraditable Conduct, Dual Criminality, Sentencing and Aggregation

The criminalisation of illegal stay under Law 5275/2026 raises a specific question for extradition law in Greece: do these new offences satisfy the dual-criminality requirement when a foreign state issues a surrender request? The answer depends on the legal system of the requesting state. In many EU jurisdictions, illegal stay itself is not a criminal offence carrying custodial penalties; it remains an administrative violation. If the requesting state’s offence has no Greek-law equivalent, dual criminality fails and surrender must be refused.

For EAW purposes, the 32-category list in the Framework Decision covers certain immigration-related offences, notably facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence, without requiring dual-criminality verification. However, simple illegal stay (as opposed to facilitation) does not appear on that list. Early indications suggest that requests based solely on illegal-stay offences will face resistance in Greek courts unless the conduct is also classified as an aggravated or organised offence.

Sentencing thresholds also matter. Under general extradition principles and the EAW Framework Decision, a warrant for prosecution purposes typically requires a maximum custodial sentence of at least 12 months in the issuing state. Counsel should verify whether the penalty attached to the requesting state’s immigration offence meets this threshold and whether cumulative sentencing (aggregating multiple immigration violations) has been used to cross the bar artificially.

Counsel checklist, dual-criminality verification:

• Obtain the full charge sheet from the requesting state and identify the precise statutory offence.
• Map the elements of that offence against the Greek Penal Code and Law 5275/2026 to verify correspondence.
• Check whether the offence falls within the 32-category EAW list; if it does not, prepare a formal dual-criminality objection.
• Review the maximum penalty in the issuing state, does it meet the 12-month threshold?
• Examine whether cumulative sentencing has been applied and challenge aggregation where appropriate.

Practical Defence Checklist and Procedural Tactics for Extradition Law in Greece

The following checklist is designed for defence counsel acting from the moment of first instruction in an extradition or EAW matter complicated by Law 5275/2026 immigration proceedings.

Immediate Triage (First 24–48 Hours)

• Identify the legal basis for detention. Determine whether the client is held on an EAW, an immigration detention order under Law 5275/2026, or both. The distinction affects procedural rights, review timelines and available remedies.
• Obtain the EAW or extradition request. Secure a certified copy of the warrant or request, including the full charge details and any supporting documentation from the issuing state.
• Check immigration status. Establish the client’s current immigration status, pending single-permit application, expired residence permit, asylum claim, or undocumented. This status will inform both the immigration defence and the extradition strategy.
• Assess flight-risk factors. Document ties to Greece (family, employment, property, community connections) to support any bail application.

Evidence to Obtain

• Full immigration file from the Ministry of Migration & Asylum, including application records, interview transcripts and any administrative decisions.
• Administrative notices, return decisions, removal orders and any prior voluntary-departure notices.
• Medical and psychological reports, particularly where the client alleges that surrender would violate ECHR Article 3.
• Country-condition evidence for the requesting state (if raising human-rights objections to surrender).
• Expert witness statements on immigration law in the requesting state (for dual-criminality challenges).

Procedural Moves

• Apply to stay execution of surrender pending the resolution of administrative appeals against immigration decisions. Where a single-permit application or asylum claim is still pending, argue that removal or surrender would render those proceedings nugatory.
• Request specialty assurances from the issuing state to ensure the client will not be prosecuted for offences beyond those specified in the warrant.
• Invoke the citizenship or nationality bar where applicable (Greek nationals) and request return-to-serve guarantees.
• Prepare ECHR Rule 39 submissions for urgent cases, assemble the application pack (factual summary, evidence of risk, request for interim measures) in advance so it can be filed immediately if the domestic surrender decision goes against the client.
• Draft a motion for conditional release arguing that immigration detention and pre-surrender detention together constitute disproportionate restraint, supported by compliance history and community ties.

Templates and Evidence List

• Template motion to stay execution of surrender (citing CCP Articles 436–456 and Framework Decision Article 24).
• Template bail application with supporting schedule of ties to Greece.
• ECHR Rule 39 application skeleton, pre-populated with case details and country-condition evidence.
• Dual-criminality comparison chart (two-column format: requesting state offence elements versus Greek law equivalents).
• Evidence-request letter to the Ministry of Migration & Asylum for disclosure of immigration file materials.

Procedural Timelines, Appellate Routes and Sample Case Flow

The following table maps the standard procedural flow for EAW execution in Greece, incorporating the new detention triggers introduced by Law 5275/2026. Counsel should note that immigration detention may commence before the EAW is formally produced, creating an earlier starting point for the overall restriction of liberty.

Comparison Table, Penalties and Extradition Risk by Entity Type Under Law 5275/2026

For quick client advisory, the following table summarises the new penalty exposure and extradition risk introduced by Law 5275/2026 across the three principal categories of affected persons.

Conclusion, Extradition Law Greece After Law 5275/2026

Law 5275/2026 has fundamentally altered the terrain for extradition law in Greece by criminalising immigration conduct that previously sat outside the surrender framework. For defendants and counsel, the reform demands faster action, deeper cross-disciplinary knowledge (spanning immigration, criminal and EU law), and earlier engagement with both domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights. The three priorities are clear: triage the legal basis for detention within hours of arrest, verify dual-criminality rigorously against the newly expanded Greek criminal code, and prepare ECHR submissions proactively rather than reactively. Practitioners who master the intersection of immigration enforcement and criminal surrender under the new regime will be best positioned to protect their clients’ rights in an increasingly compressed procedural landscape.

Those requiring jurisdictional advice or representation can find extradition lawyers through the Global Law Experts directory.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It does not create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should consult qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction before taking action based on the information provided. All statutory references are current as of July 2026 and may be subject to subsequent amendment.

Sources

1. Greek Official Gazette (FEK), Law 5275/2026
2. Ministry of Migration & Asylum (Greece)
3. Hellenic Ministry of Justice, International Judicial Cooperation
4. EUR-LEX, Directive (EU) 2024/1233 and Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
5. European Court of Human Rights (HUDOC)