The Court of Appeal in Warsaw upheld the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw, declaring the extradition of a Nigerian citizen to the United States of America legally admissible. The requested person was sought via an Interpol Red Notice for offenses equivalent to participation in an organized crime group, fraud, and money laundering under Polish law. The defense counsel appealed the decision, alleging a violation of Article 3 and Article 5 of the ECHR and the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. The defense argued that the harsh penalties in the requesting state, combined with potential bias or discrimination based on the requested person's ethnic origin and nationality, posed a risk of inhuman treatment and a violation of his fundamental rights. The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, reasoning that the defense failed to provide objective facts or specific evidence demonstrating a real, individual threat. General assertions about severe penalties in a specific US state or theoretical discrimination are insufficient grounds to refuse extradition. The Court of Appeal in Warsaw upheld the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw, declaring the extradition of a Nigerian citizen to the United States of America legally admissible. The requested person was sought via an Interpol Red Notice for offenses equivalent to participation in an organized crime group, fraud, and money laundering under Polish law. The defense counsel appealed the decision, alleging a violation of Article 3 and Article 5 of the ECHR and the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. The defense argued that the harsh penalties in the requesting state, combined with potential bias or discrimination based on the requested person's ethnic origin and nationality, posed a risk of inhuman treatment and a violation of his fundamental rights. The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, reasoning that the defense failed to provide objective facts or specific evidence demonstrating a real, individual threat. General assertions about severe penalties in a specific US state or theoretical discrimination are insufficient grounds to refuse extradition.

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw upheld the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw, declaring the extradition of a Ukrainian citizen to the United States of America legally admissible. The requested person was sought via an Interpol notice for offenses equivalent to participation in an organized crime group, document forgery, fraud, and cybercrimes under Polish law. The defense counsel appealed the decision, arguing a violation of the ECHR (Articles 3 and 5) and the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence claimed the extradition was inadmissible because the person faced up to 67.5 years in prison, the alleged offenses were of a political nature (the requested person claimed to work for South Korean intelligence), and there was a risk of the death penalty. The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, stating that general fears of severe penalties or theoretical risks of the death penalty do not constitute sufficient grounds to refuse extradition, especially since the USA rarely applies the death penalty for espionage nowadays (citing the historical case of J. and E. R. from 1953 as a rare exception). The Court found no mandatory or optional grounds for refusal and emphasized that the requesting state provided comprehensive and unquestionable documentation.

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw upheld the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw, which declared the extradition of the requested person to the United States of America legally inadmissible. The individual was sought for criminal proceedings regarding offenses equivalent to assaulting a public official, participating in a riot, influencing official activities, and disrupting an election under Polish law. The lower court based its refusal solely on the mandatory ground that the requested person is a Polish citizen. The defense counsel appealed this decision, arguing that the court should have also included additional absolute grounds for refusal, specifically that the offenses were of a political nature and that some did not meet the double criminality threshold (punishable by more than one year). The Court of Appeal dismissed the defence's arguments, reasoning that under the extradition agreement, if one offense qualifies, extradition can be granted for others regardless of the penalty threshold. Furthermore, the Court concluded that while the acts might have been motivated by political beliefs, in a democratic system, assaulting an officer or rioting does not inherently constitute a "political offence" that would trigger an absolute ban on extradition. Therefore, the refusal based solely on nationality was correct.

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw upheld the decision of the Regional Court Warsaw-Praga, declaring the extradition of the requested person to the United States of America legally admissible. The individual was sought for criminal proceedings. The defense counsels appealed the decision, raising multiple arguments. They argued that the extradition was inadmissible because similar proceedings regarding the same acts had allegedly been conducted and discontinued in Ukraine (ne bis in idem / lis pendens). They also argued a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, asserting that the potential cumulative penalty in the USA (over 200 years in prison) amounted to inhuman treatment. Furthermore, the defence contested the evidentiary value of the FBI agent's sworn statement, the translation/spelling of the requested person's name (claiming mistaken identity), and suggested a psychiatric evaluation was needed. The Court of Appeal dismissed all arguments, reasoning that the extradition treaty prohibits extradition only if the person was convicted or acquitted in Poland (the requested state), not a third country like Ukraine. The Court clarified that an FBI agent's sworn statement meets the treaty requirements for establishing probable cause, and the requested person's identity was properly verified using dates of birth and photographs. Finally, the Court found no real risk of inhuman treatment or the death penalty, and no grounds to question the requested person's sanity.

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw overruled the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw-Praga granting the extradition of the requested person to the United States of America, but upheld the extension of the pre trial detention. The requested person was sought for offenses equivalent to hacking, theft, and fraud under Polish law. The defense counsel appealed the lower court's decision, arguing a gross violation of the right to defense. The Court of Appeal agreed, emphasizing that the lower court provided the extradition documents to the defense immediately before the hearing, denied a motion to adjourn, and only allowed a brief recess. The Court of Appeal reasoned that such conduct made the right to defense illusory, as it was impossible to analyze the materials, prepare evidentiary motions, or challenge the requesting state's arguments. Furthermore, the lower court unlawfully ignored the evidentiary motions submitted by the defense, which violated the right to a fair trial. However, regarding the pre trial detention, the Court of Appeal reasoned that the evidence provided by the US authorities sufficiently established a high probability that the requested person committed the acts, and the premises for securing the proceedings, including flight risk, remained valid.

Extradition may be refused where surrender would give rise to a real risk of violations of fundamental rights under the ECHR, including where the requested person may have already effectively served the sentence underlying the request or where surrender would entail a disproportionate interference with personal liberty; issues may also arise under Article 7 ECHR where extradition relies on the retroactive application of subsequent treaty frameworks to offences arguably time-barred under the previous legal regime. Furthermore, a cassation appeal is admissible only in the presence of a manifest and serious violation of law and does not extend to a reassessment of facts or evidence.