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.

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.

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.