Ukraine Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure

Extradition cases involving Ukraine — Requested and Requesting State

🇺🇦

Ukraine

Ukraine Extradition Law & Case Law — 17 cases

0
As requested
state
17
As requesting
state
Case Law
Extradition to Ukraine refused: war risks and insufficient assurances
✕
Summary
The Italian Supreme Court examined an appeal against a decision authorising extradition to Ukraine for prosecution on organised-crime and aggravated-extortion charges. It held that the ongoing armed conflict exposed the requested person to a real risk to life and to rights protected by Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, irrespective of the location of the proposed detention facility. Assurances concerning an air-raid shelter and priority access were insufficient, particularly in light of the requested person’s medical conditions and the lack of adequate guarantees of timely assistance. The Court also explained that Ukraine’s derogations under Article 15 ECHR did not relieve Italy of its own obligations to protect persons within its jurisdiction, while finding the challenges concerning translation, evidential sufficiency and retroactivity inadmissible. It quashed the authorising judgment without remittal, rejected the extradition request and ordered immediate release unless detention was required on other grounds.
04/09/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 35444/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇦Ukraine
DeniedExtradition
Extradition and existence of an armed conflict in the requesting State
✕
Summary
The mere fact that a State is involved in an armed conflict does not automatically imply that detainees will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In any event, within extradition proceedings—during which the actual evolution of the armed conflict must be assessed on a case-by-case basis—it is always possible to request additional information from the requesting State, as well as any necessary assurances regarding the place of detention of the requested person and the respect of their fundamental rights.
09/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 14935/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇦Ukraine
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Extradition to Ukraine granted: ongoing armed conflict did not automatically bar surrender of Ukrainian national
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request by Ukraine for the prosecution of a Ukrainian national accused of aggravated misappropriation, bank fraud and forgery of an official document. The requested person opposed extradition, arguing, among other grounds, that the ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine exposed him to a real risk of death or inhuman or degrading treatment, and that his subsidiary protection status granted by Poland barred surrender. The Italian Supreme Court held that the mere existence of an armed conflict in the requesting State does not automatically preclude extradition. Rather, the executing court must carry out a concrete assessment of the actual risk faced by the requested person, taking into account the location of the detention facilities, their distance from active hostilities, the availability of protective measures, and reliable updated sources. In the present case, Ukraine had identified detention facilities located away from the areas of active conflict and equipped with shelters, while the available UN material showed only a low and non-specific risk in those areas. The Court further held that the CJEU case law concerning refugee status granted by another EU Member State does not apply to subsidiary protection. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the extradition order upheld.
08/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 21653/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇦Ukraine
GrantedExtradition
Extradition to Ukraine refused: cumulative Article 8 factors outweighed public interest despite assurances
✕
Summary
The case concerned a request by Ukraine for the extradition of a sitting Ukrainian Member of Parliament to stand trial for alleged violent offences committed in 2022 and 2023. The requested person resisted extradition on several grounds, arguing that the proceedings were politically and religiously motivated, that he had previously been ill-treated by Ukrainian security officers, that the ongoing armed conflict created risks under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, and that he would face unfair trial, arbitrary detention, religious persecution and oppression due to ill health. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court rejected the objections based on political motivation, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 ECHR, ill health and abuse of process, holding in particular that Ukraine’s specific and verifiable assurances were sufficient to neutralise the identified risks. However, the Court accepted that the requested person had previously been subjected to ill-treatment in SBU custody and considered that this, together with his public perception as sympathetic to Russia, the residual risks arising from the armed conflict, his family circumstances, and the comparatively limited seriousness and likely penal consequences of the alleged offences, created an exceptional cumulative picture. The Court therefore held that extradition would amount to a disproportionate interference with private and family life under Article 8 ECHR and ordered discharge under section 87(2) of the Extradition Act 2003.
04/03/2026 · Westminster Magistrates’ Court · The Government of Ukraine v Artem Dmytruk
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇺🇦Ukraine
GrantedExtradition
Extradition to Ukraine: armed conflict and risk to the safety of the person sought
✕
Summary
The extremely severe situation of the ongoing armed conflict, which is now spreading to areas previously unaffected by attacks by the Russian Federation and whose developments are, at present, unpredictable, constitutes a ground precluding extradition, as it is not possible to provide an effective guarantee as to the absence of a current risk to the safety of the person to be extradited. The exceptional nature of the current situation of the armed conflict in Ukraine constitutes a “matter of common knowledge,” acquired within the collective awareness to such a degree of certainty as to appear indisputable.
30/12/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 1167/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇦Ukraine
DeniedExtradition
Refugee status granted after final wxtradition decision requires special review before surrender
✕
Summary
Romania had finally approved the extradition of a Georgian national to Ukraine, while postponing surrender because of the ongoing state of war in the requesting State. After the extradition decision became final but before surrender took place, the requested person was granted refugee status in Romania, leading the lower court to find a legal impediment to enforcement of the extradition order. The High Court held that acquisition of refugee status during the interval between the final extradition judgment and surrender triggers the specific review procedure provided by Article 19 of Law No. 302/2004, which takes precedence over the ordinary procedure for challenging enforcement. It therefore set aside the lower court's decision and dismissed the enforcement challenge as inadmissible, without determining within those proceedings whether extradition to Ukraine could ultimately be carried out.
24/12/2025 · High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania · 939/2025
🇷🇴Romania → 🇺🇦Ukraine
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Denial of extradition because of the impossibility to guarantee a fair trial at a time of war
✕
Summary
Martial law remains in force throughout the territory of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian Government has notified the Council of Europe and the United Nations that it continues to derogate from Ukraine’s obligations under Article 2(3), Articles 9, 14 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, without prejudice to the fundamental principles of a fair trial and legal protection, including the ne bis in idem principle.The Court found that said derogations were not limited to areas of active conflict. It also highlighted that the Ukrainian government cannot predict which areas might be targeted next and, as a result, might become affected by the derogations. Further, because of the martial law in force, itself dependent on the duration of the war, the temporary detention of the person concerned will depend on an "authorized agent" and its extension will depend on the prosecuting authority, except by decision of a judge or a court. There is no guarantee that the requested individual would benefit from a fair trial within a reasonable time.
29/10/2025 · Appeal Court of Paris · 2024/10328
🇫🇷France → 🇺🇦Ukraine
DeniedExtradition
Extradition, armed conflict and fundamental rights risk as a bar to surrender
✕
Summary
In matters of extradition to a foreign State, a bar to surrender based on the risk to the individual’s fundamental rights arises where the requesting State, being involved in an armed conflict, is unable to provide adequate assurances as to the absence of a current risk to the safety of the requested person, due to the widespread, intense and exceptional nature of military attacks affecting its entire territory, where such a situation is objectively established, including as a matter of common knowledge.
16/07/2025 · Supreme Court · 29416/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇦Ukraine
DeniedExtradition
Extradition and temporary protection granted by an EU member State (Directive 2001/55/EC)
✕
Summary
In matters of extradition to a foreign State, where the request for surrender is made by the third country of origin of a person to whom another Member State of the European Union has granted temporary protection pursuant to Directive 2001/55/EC, the requested Italian judicial authority must initiate prior consultations with the State that granted such protection, in order to ascertain whether it precludes the execution of the extradition or whether the authority that granted it intends to revoke it pursuant to Article 28 of that Directive. In this context, the principles laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 18 June 2024, Case C-352/22, concerning persons granted refugee status under Directive 2011/95/EU, shall apply. (Case concerning an extradition request submitted by Ukraine against one of its nationals, to whom the Portuguese authorities had granted temporary protection, pursuant to Directive 2001/55/EC and Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 of 4 March 2022, for persons fleeing the ongoing war in that country).
16/07/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 26811/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇦Ukraine
Reversal and remandExtradition
Extradition to Ukraine granted: individualised assurances sufficient to exclude Art. 3 ECHR risk despite prison conditions and war
✕
Summary
Ukraine requested the extradition of a Ukrainian national from Denmark for prosecution in relation to four alleged burglaries. Although several international reports documented structural deficiencies in Ukrainian prisons, including overcrowding, poor material conditions and problems aggravated by the ongoing war, the Ukrainian authorities provided specific assurances concerning the requested person’s detention, including placement in designated institutions in western Ukraine, at least 4 sq.m. of personal space and protection against treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Applying the ECtHR principles governing diplomatic assurances, the Supreme Court held that the guarantees had to be assessed in light of both their nature and content and the requested person’s individual circumstances, and concluded that they were sufficient to exclude a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The Court therefore upheld the District Court’s decision and granted extradition to Ukraine.
20/06/2025 · Supreme Court of Denmark · 3/2025
🇩🇰Denmark → 🇺🇦Ukraine
GrantedExtradition
Denial of extradition because of the impossibility to guarantee a fair trial at a time of war
✕
Summary
On 18 April 2022, the Permanent Representation of Ukraine informed the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe of the impossibility of guaranteeing the full implementation by the Ukrainian side of its obligations under the international treaties concerning international cooperation within the Council of Europe during the period of armed aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the imposition of martial law on the territory of Ukraine. The list of aforementioned treaties included: the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 24), the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 86), the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 209), the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 212) and the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 212). As a result, the Requesting State was found unable to guarantee that the requested individual would be judged by a court able to ensure a fair trial and the respect of the rights of the defence. Further, the requested individual could face a denial of justice, as a result of the application of the martial law and the ongoing armed conflict, which could profoundly disrupt the judicial system and prevent the progress of proceedings.
15/12/2024 · Appeal Court of Grenoble · 2024/00380, 2024/00435
🇫🇷France → 🇺🇦Ukraine
DeniedExtradition
Extradition and flight risk: the Court of Appeal has to explain why house arrest would be inappropriate
✕
Summary
With regard to the request to replace the current custodial measure with house arrest, and as to why such measure — even with the prescribed conditions and safeguards — would not be sufficient to neutralise the identified precautionary needs, the Court is effectively silent. It follows that the challenged order must be quashed on this point; the Court of Appeal shall apply the stated principles and carry out a fresh assessment as to the adequacy of the measure currently in place, or the possibility of replacing it with house arrest.
01/07/2024 · Italian Supreme Court · 39555/2024
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇦Ukraine
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Fundamental rights risk and lack of detention assurances under martial law in armed conflict
✕
Summary
The ground for refusal based on the risk to the person’s fundamental rights is established where, in the requesting State—engaged in an ongoing armed conflict—martial law is in force and no specific assurances are provided regarding the detention conditions that will be ensured for the person sought.
30/01/2024 · Italian Supreme Court · 8636/2024
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇦Ukraine
Reversal and remandExtradition
Denial of extradition because of the impossibility to guarantee a fair trial at a time of war
✕
Summary
Summary:The Court of Cassation approves the reasoning of the Appeal Court of Chambéry. Martial law remains in force throughout the territory of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian Government has notified the Council of Europe and the United Nations that it continues to derogate from Ukraine’s obligations under Article 2(3), Articles 9, 14 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, without prejudice to the fundamental principles of a fair trial and legal protection, including the ne bis in idem principle.The Court found that said derogations were not limited to areas of active conflict. It also highlighted that the Ukrainian government cannot predict which areas might be targeted next and, as a result, might become affected by the derogations. Further, because of the martial law in force, itself dependent on the duration of the war, the temporary detention of the person concerned will depend on an "authorized agent" and its extension will depend on the prosecuting authority, except by decision of a judge or a court. There is no guarantee that the requested individual would benefit from a fair trial within a reasonable time.
07/11/2023 · Court of Cassation · 23-82.220
🇫🇷France → 🇺🇦Ukraine
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to Ukraine barred under Article 3 ECHR despite diplomatic assurances
✕
Summary
Ukraine requested the extradition of a person for alleged violence against police officers and violent resistance committed in April 2019. The Supreme Court of Sweden held that extradition for violent resistance was barred by limitation under Swedish law, since the requested person’s earlier detention followed by release without service of an indictment had not interrupted the limitation period. Although the remaining offence satisfied the statutory requirements and the allegations of persecution and humanitarian objections did not establish separate statutory bars, the Court found that extradition would be incompatible with Article 3 ECHR. Its overall assessment took account of the ongoing war, deteriorating prison conditions and increased risks of abuse, notwithstanding Ukraine’s assurances concerning fair trial rights, humane treatment and monitoring by Swedish authorities. The Court also observed that, where extradition is barred, the requesting State may seek prosecution in Sweden under applicable international agreements or domestic jurisdictional rules.
31/10/2023 · Swedish Supreme Court · B 3926-23
🇸🇪Sweden → 🇺🇦Ukraine
DeniedExtradition
Extradition and the prohibition of multiple precautionary charges for the same facts
✕
Summary
The prohibition under Article 297(3) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure on multiple precautionary charges entailing the application of the same coercive measure for “the same facts” also applies in extradition proceedings, in the absence of specific conventional or domestic provisions to the contrary. This follows from the general reference made by Article 714(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the provisions set out in Title I of Book IV of the Code. The Court declared the custodial measure ineffective in respect of a requested person who had already served the maximum period of detention in the course of a different extradition proceeding initiated, for the same facts, following a prior request.
16/09/2022 · Italian Supreme Court · 36577/2022
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇦Ukraine
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Extradition Court must examine statute of limitations under both requested and requesting State law
✕
Summary
Ukraine requested the extradition of a person from France for prosecution for aggravated robbery committed in 2011. The French Court of Cassation first held that the ordinary notice periods governing hearings before the investigating chamber under Article 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to extradition proceedings under Articles 696-13 and 696-15. It nevertheless quashed the favourable extradition opinion because the lower court had failed to determine, including of its own motion, whether the prosecution had become time-barred or whether limitation had been validly interrupted under both French and Ukrainian law before the extradition request was submitted. The case was remitted to a differently composed chamber of the Douai Court of Appeal.
23/09/2015 · French Supreme Court · 15-83.991
🇫🇷France → 🇺🇦Ukraine
Reversal and remandExtradition
Country Contributor
Liliia Kuznets
VB Partners
Liliia Kuznets is Counsel at VB Partners. She specializes in WCC, Mutual Legal Assistance, INTERPOL and extradition.
She specializes in defending clients in complex criminal and anti-corruption proceedings with cross-border elements.
She has extensive experience in extradition proceedings and INTERPOL matters. She represents clients before pre-trial investigation authorities, prosecutors, and courts. She coordinates defense together with foreign colleagues in multi-jurisdictional criminal cases, including in France, Canada, Germany, Austria, and Spain.
She is an expert in Ukrainian law in extradition cases. She has been involved in proceedings before the Lisbon Court of Appeal in Portugal and has prepared opinions for courts in the United Kingdom and Cyprus.
She was recognized among Rising Leaders: The New Generation of Leaders 2026.
Her clients include Agrial, UDP, a shareholder of Finance and Credit Bank, a top manager at PrivatBank, Ukrgasbank, and a former Deputy Minister of Justice.
Her projects include acting as national counsel in extradition proceedings in France concerning a shareholder of Finance and Credit Bank at the request of the State Bureau of Investigation and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau. The French Supreme Court refused extradition and ruled that the state was unable to guarantee the right to defense and a fair trial.
She represented the top management of one of the country’s largest shopping and entertainment centers in a case involving tax evasion on non-resident income received in Ukraine.
She represented the interests of the former CEO of PrivatBank in a number of criminal and international proceedings, including at INTERPOL, regarding the cancellation of a red notice at the request of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and in proceedings concerning the alleged misappropriation of UAH 9.2 billion through the repurchase of bonds.
She acted as national counsel in extradition proceedings in Austria concerning the former Deputy Minister of Justice, justifying the impossibility of extradition under martial law and the absence of adequate guarantees of the right to defense.
She represented the interests of a former top manager of one of the oldest aircraft manufacturing companies in INTERPOL proceedings to prevent the publication of a red card in high-profile criminal proceedings by the Security Service of Ukraine concerning the legalization of shares.
Country Contributor
Yuliia Kuznets
VB Partners
Yuliia Kuznets is Counsel at VB Partners. She specializes in sanctions and mutual legal assistance.
She specializes in defending clients in complex criminal and anti-corruption proceedings, as well as high-profile court cases with political implications.
She has deep expertise in sanctions law and in advising clients on regulatory and reputational risks. She advises on the application of sanctions and develops individual strategies for responding to sanctions restrictions.
She has significant experience in international legal assistance cases and cross-border investigations. She coordinates defense in multi-jurisdictional proceedings and represents clients’ interests at key stages of communication with foreign law enforcement and judicial institutions.
She was recognized among Rising Leaders: The New Generation of Leaders 2026.
Her clients include Warner Music, BNP Paribas Group, JKX Oil & Gas, former managers of Sense Bank, international financial groups, and multinational corporations.
Her projects include the successful representation of the interests of the former manager of one of the largest international financial groups in the Supreme Court regarding the lifting of personal sanctions. VB Partners were the first to achieve the cancellation of sanctions in court.
She advised an American multinational label within the Big Three of the global music market on sanctions compliance issues.
She represented the interests of a British company engaged in exploration and extraction of minerals in Ukraine regarding the prevention of seizure of assets for state revenue, or nationalization.
She defended top managers of a commercial bank with international capital, ranked among the top 10 banks in Ukraine in terms of assets, in comprehensive criminal proceedings concerning the legalization of UAH 574 million and tax evasion in the amount of UAH 18 million.
She advised on sanctions compliance for one of the largest sports associations in the US, represented in over 200 countries, in an agreement with a provider.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving Ukraine

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →