Russia

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.