Russia

In extradition proceedings, a decision refusing to revoke or replace detention must be translated into a language understood by the requested person where their lack of knowledge of Italian has already been established. Translation of the operative part alone is insufficient where the reasons are filed later, since the person must be able to understand the grounds for the continued deprivation of liberty and exercise their defence rights effectively. Moreover, when deciding any application concerning the imposition, revocation or modification of detention, the court must assess whether objective, reliable and up-to-date evidence indicates a real risk that the requested person would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting State. Such an assessment cannot be deferred exclusively to the merits stage of the extradition proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Cyprus dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a habeas corpus application challenging the requested person’s extradition to Russia for prosecution for large-scale corporate tax evasion. The Court accepted that the assurances provided by the Russian authorities could not be regarded as satisfactory, in particular in light of Russia’s withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights system, but held that this did not automatically preclude extradition. It reiterated that the requested person bears the burden of establishing, through concrete and specific evidence, substantial grounds for believing that he personally faces a real risk of ill-treatment, an unfair trial or other human-rights violations, and found that such an individualized risk had not been demonstrated. The Court also rejected the allegation that the prosecution was pursued for ulterior motives, holding that suspicion alone was insufficient and that bad faith had to be established by positive and convincing evidence.

In matters of extradition to a foreign State, a bar arises where there is a risk to the individual’s fundamental rights, particularly where the requesting State—no longer a member of the Council of Europe and involved in an armed conflict—cannot provide assurances that there is no current danger to the life or physical integrity of the person sought, in light of the widespread, severe and exceptional nature of the hostilities affecting its entire territory, where such a situation is objectively established, including as a matter of common knowledge. In the present case, moreover, since Poland—an EU Member State—has granted the requested person subsidiary protection, extradition to a third State could not, in any event, proceed without prior consultation with Poland. Poland has, in fact, already refused extradition to the Russian Federation on the basis of the same arrest warrant and for the same offences underlying the present proceedings; it is therefore reasonable to assume that such consultation would lead to a negative outcome.

In matters of extradition to a foreign State, when assessing the existence of grounds precluding the issuance of a decision in favor of surrender - which, pursuant to Article 714(3) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, also bar the adoption of coercive measures aimed at securing its execution - the Court of Appeal is required to determine whether, on the basis of objective and reliable elements, there is a risk that the person sought will be subjected, in the requesting State, to inhuman or degrading treatment (also considering the impact of Russia - Ukraine war).

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Russian Federation against a person sought for the offence of establishing a criminal organization.The Ankara 33rd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706 and the bilateral treaty between Türkiye and the Russian Federation.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition request contained contradictory and incomplete information;- the alleged conduct, place of commission, and applicable legal provisions were insufficiently specified;- the requested person risked politically motivated prosecution;- extradition could expose the requested person to torture, ill-treatment, or disproportionate punishment;- defence rights had been violated;- and proportionality and family circumstances had not been properly considered.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that:additional information and supporting evidence should have been requested from the Russian Federation;the alleged acts should have been concretely specified regarding place, time, and manner of commission;translated and certified evidentiary materials linking the requested person to the alleged offence should have been obtained;double criminality and limitation-period assessments required further clarification.The Court further found that:- the requested person had not properly been informed about consent-based extradition procedures;- defence rights had been restricted because extradition materials had not been properly disclosed;- specialty-principle guarantees had not been reflected in the judgment;- and the lower court failed to assess family integration, long-term residence, health conditions, and proportionality under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Russian Federation against an Uzbek national sought for:- murder committed to conceal another offence;- armed robbery committed by multiple offenders.The requested person was internationally sought through an Interpol Red Notice issued by Russian authorities.The İstanbul 15th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706 and the bilateral treaty between Türkiye and the Russian Federation.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition materials had not been sufficiently translated;- the offences were time-barred;- extradition would violate fair trial guarantees and legal certainty;- extradition conditions had not been satisfied.The Turkish Court of Cassation upheld the extradition admissibility decision.The Court emphasized that:- the requested person was not a Turkish citizen;- the offences constituted serious ordinary crimes under both Turkish and Russian law;- the offences were neither political nor military offences;- the alleged crimes were committed in Russia and therefore did not fall within Turkish territorial jurisdiction;- there was insufficient evidence that the requested person would face discriminatory prosecution, torture, or ill-treatment upon extradition.The Court therefore concluded that the extradition request satisfied the requirements of Law No. 6706 and applicable treaty obligations.

The interest in obtaining a ruling on appeal against a pre-trial detention order persists even where such order has been revoked during the course of the de libertate proceedings, provided that a decision annulling the measure may constitute, pursuant to Article 314(2) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, a prerequisite for claiming compensation for wrongful detention, where the coercive measure was issued or maintained in the absence of the legal conditions for its application. On the one hand, where personal liberty has been restricted in the context of a passive extradition procedure that has concluded without a final decision granting extradition, the right to compensation may arise. On the other hand, for the applicant’s interest in pursuing the appeal to be recognised—specifically in view of relying on a favourable decision for the purposes of a future compensation claim—it is necessary that such interest be expressly and duly substantiated by the person concerned. This requires a specific and reasoned submission demonstrating, in concrete terms, the prejudice that would result from the failure to obtain such a ruling, and must be made personally by the applicant.

Health conditions and extradition. The Russian Federation requested the extradition of an elderly Russian business executive for prosecution in connection with alleged fraud, embezzlement and corruption offences. The Court held that the requested person’s severe cardiac condition, diabetes and hypertension, requiring uninterrupted treatment and continuous medical monitoring, made surrender and the ensuing detention abroad incompatible with his health and exposed him to a concrete risk of significant pathological consequences. The Court regarded those health conditions as the decisive ground for refusal under Article 705(2)(c-bis) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. It also considered Russia’s expulsion from the Council of Europe and the impending cessation of ECHR protection as an additional factor undermining the expectation of humane detention, and therefore rejected the extradition request.

risk of inhuman or degrading treatment: for the purposes of assessing the ground for refusal provided for by article 698(1) of the italian code of criminal procedure, the court of appeal must verify whether the penalty provided for under the law of the requesting state—regardless of its formal designation—effectively amounts to treatment that violates the fundamental rights of the individual.

The case concerned the requested extradition of a Ukrainian national to Russia for organised drug-related offences carrying a possible sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court was required, even beyond the grounds expressly raised on appeal, to examine whether a life sentence would be reducible de jure and de facto through a realistic review and release mechanism compatible with Article 3 ECHR. The mere existence of a formal parole provision was insufficient without assessing its practical accessibility, governing criteria and actual operation. The decision permitting extradition was therefore quashed and the case remitted for a comprehensive reassessment.

Article 59 of the russian criminal code provides that the death penalty shall not be applied to a person extradited if the legislation of the requested state does not provide for it, or if its non-application forms part of a specific condition of the extradition. In this respect, a provision of positive law within the legal system of the requesting state, according to which the death penalty is not prescribed for the offence for which extradition is sought, must be regarded as an absolute guarantee for the purposes of granting extradition.

The case concerned a Russian request for extradition from Italy for prosecution in relation to fraud allegedly committed through abuse of official position. The requested person opposed extradition, arguing that the accusation was false and politically motivated because of his opposition activity in Russia. He also produced evidence that he had applied for international protection in Spain before his arrest in Italy and had been authorised to remain there pending determination of that request. The Court of Appeal of Bologna refused extradition. It noted that, although the pending asylum procedure in Spain did not formally create an automatic bar to extradition, it was a relevant element, especially because the Spanish authorities indicated that, had the arrest occurred in Spain, extradition proceedings would have been stayed pending the asylum decision. The Court also found that the defence had substantiated a concrete risk under Article 698 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. The materials produced described repeated human rights violations in Russia, including detention conditions incompatible with human dignity, excessive pre-trial detention, political misuse of detention, coerced confessions and ill-treatment, with particular concern for the region involved in the case. Those general risks were connected to the requested person’s specific situation through evidence suggesting that a co-accused had allegedly been pressured and detained to make accusations against him, and through defence investigations indicating a risk of political retaliation. The Russian authorities failed to respond to specific requests for information on these allegations. The Court therefore held that the combined asylum-related and persecution-risk factors prevented extradition.

Russia requested the extradition of a dual Lithuanian-Russian citizen from Finland for the enforcement of a custodial sentence imposed in Russia. Following the CJEU’s preliminary ruling in Case C-247/17, the Supreme Court held that an EU citizen who has exercised the right to free movement and is permanently resident in Finland must, for the purposes of extradition for sentence enforcement, receive the same treatment as a Finnish national. Assessing the requested person’s residence, family ties, social integration and conduct in Finland as a whole, the Court found that he was permanently resident and integrated into Finnish society. Since Finnish law prohibits the extradition of Finnish citizens, the extradition request could not be granted.

Russia requested the extradition of the requested person from Denmark for prosecution, and the person was detained in Denmark while the extradition request was being examined. At the same time, the Danish immigration authorities decided that he should be transferred to France under the Dublin Regulation for examination of his asylum application. The Supreme Court held that the planned Dublin transfer did not in itself preclude continued detention for extradition purposes. At the time of the District Court’s decision, the extradition proceedings had not been concluded and it remained legally possible for the Danish prosecution authority to decide in favour of extradition to Russia. Having regard to the nature of the case and the requested person’s lack of ties to Denmark, the Court therefore held that the statutory conditions for continued detention remained satisfied. The subsequent release and transfer to France did not deprive the requested person of a legal interest in obtaining judicial review of the earlier detention decision.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Russian Federation against a Georgian national sought for prosecution for intentional homicide. Russian judicial authorities had initiated homicide proceedings and issued an in absentia arrest warrant dated 15 December 2000. The requested person was internationally sought for extradition to Russia.He was apprehended in Türkiye on 23 May 2017 while attempting to leave the country. Following arrest, Turkish judicial authorities ordered detention pending extradition proceedings.Russian authorities transmitted an extradition request through the Turkish Ministry of Justice pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition.The Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible.The defence appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that:- despite repeal of former Article 18 TCK by Article 36 of Law No. 6706,- the new law did not alter the requested person’s legal position.The Court further held that:- intentional homicide constituted an offence under Turkish criminal law;- extradition conditions were satisfied under: Law No. 6706; Article 6 ECHR; the European Convention on Extradition.The extradition admissibility judgment was upheld.

The Belarusian authorities requested the extradition of a stateless person for prosecution for an alleged aggravated theft committed in Minsk. The appellant argued that the lower court had failed to consider his application for Russian citizenship, his family circumstances and his willingness to be prosecuted in Russia. The Supreme Court held that he had not acquired Russian citizenship, had not applied before the extradition review began, and had neither refugee status nor temporary asylum. It further found that double criminality was satisfied and that Belarus had provided adequate guarantees concerning speciality, defence rights, protection from ill-treatment and the absence of discriminatory or political persecution.