A request to trace proceeds of crime, to freeze an account or to enforce a confiscation order in Türkiye rests on one of two Council of Europe instruments: the Strasbourg Convention of 8 November 1990 (ETS 141) or the Warsaw Convention of 16 May 2005 (CETS 198), which also covers the financing of terrorism. Türkiye is a party to both, and the translation provisions of the two texts are built identically. The declarations Türkiye made under them are not identical, and the difference decides whether a request may arrive in English.
Türkiye and the two conventions
ETS 141 entered into force for Türkiye on 1 February 2005, after ratification on 6 October 2004, and CETS 198 on 1 September 2016, after ratification on 2 May 2016. Both bind Türkiye at the same time, which is why the relationship rule below matters before anything is translated.
The default and the declaration option
Under Article 25(2) of ETS 141, subject to paragraph 3, translations of requests or supporting documents are not required. Article 25(3) lets a Party declare that it reserves the right to require requests made to it, and their supporting documents, to be accompanied by a translation into its own language, into one of the official languages of the Council of Europe, or into such one of these as it indicates; the same declaration may state a readiness to accept other languages, and the other Parties may apply the reciprocity rule. Articles 35(2) and 35(3) of CETS 198 repeat that structure, and Article 35(1) adds that a request may be transmitted by electronic means.
Two declarations that differ by one word
In its declaration of 9 November 2004 on ETS 141 Türkiye stated that requests submitted to it and their supporting documents should be accompanied by a translation into Turkish or English. In the declaration of 2 May 2016 on CETS 198 English does not appear: all requests and supporting documents are accompanied by their Turkish translations. The two declarations differ by a single option, and that option decides the target language of an entire file.
Which one applies: Article 49(6)
Article 49(6) of CETS 198 sets the relationship. Parties to the 2005 Convention that are at the same time parties to the 1990 Convention apply the 2005 Convention in their mutual relations, and continue to apply the 1990 Convention in their relations with other parties to it that are not parties to the 2005 Convention. Since Türkiye is a party to both, the position of the requesting State settles the question: where that State is also bound by CETS 198, Türkiye’s Turkish-only declaration governs; where it is bound only by ETS 141, the Turkish or English declaration governs.
Requests to Türkiye, State by State
France, Belgium, Germany, Monaco and Morocco are parties to CETS 198 as well, so a request from any of them reaches Türkiye with a Turkish translation, and an English translation does not answer the declaration. Switzerland is bound only by ETS 141, in force for it since 1 September 1993; Luxembourg has been bound by ETS 141 since 1 January 2002 and has only signed the 2005 Convention; Australia has been bound since 1 November 1997. From those three a translation into Turkish or into English meets Türkiye’s declaration. The United States and Canada appear in neither party list. A general statement that Türkiye accepts English in confiscation matters is therefore incomplete, and for a request from Paris, Brussels or Berlin it is wrong.
Requests leaving Türkiye
In the other direction the receiving State’s declaration is read, and Article 49(6) again decides which of its declarations counts. In an ETS 141 relationship Switzerland asks for requests and supporting documents in German, French or Italian, or with a translation into one of those languages, and requires the accuracy of the translation to be officially certified; Luxembourg asks for French or German. In a CETS 198 relationship Germany asks for German or a Council of Europe official language, and Monaco for French. France and Belgium have no language declaration under either instrument, although the reciprocity sentence lets them apply Türkiye’s own requirement in return.
Central authority, service, legalisation and costs
Türkiye designated the Ministry of Justice as central authority under both instruments (ETS 141 Article 23; CETS 198 Article 33), and named its financial crimes investigation board as the financial intelligence unit under Article 46(13) of CETS 198. On the service of judicial documents on persons in Türkiye, the ETS 141 declaration allows the methods of the Convention only where Turkish legislation or the relevant agreements provide for them and otherwise routes the documents through the central authority; under CETS 198 they are served only through the central authority for mutual assistance in criminal matters. Documents transmitted under either chapter are exempt from all legalisation formalities (Article 26; Article 36). The ordinary costs of complying with a request fall on the requested Party, and for costs of a substantial or extraordinary nature the Parties consult (Article 34; Article 44). Acte Tercüme translates requests, freezing and confiscation decisions and their annexes into Turkish for files coming to Türkiye, and Turkish requests into English or French for those going out.