Commission notice

2.2. Extradition requests for the execution of a custodial sentence or a detention order 
2.2.1. Scope 
a. Material scope 
The Raugevicius judgment applies in cases where: 
- the request is an extradition request for execution of a custodial sentence or detention 
order 
and 
- 
the requested State applies the nationality exception to own nationals only, leading to 
potential discrimination between own nationals and nationals of other States who have 
exercised their right to free movement (c.f. 
Annex 2 - an overview of national systems
).
b. Personal scope concerning extradition requests for the execution of a sentence: to 
whom does the Raugevicius judgment apply? 
The obligation of equal treatment in this respect applies only to the extent that own nationals 
and nationals of other States are in a comparable situation with regard to the objective of 
avoiding the risk of impunity. Since the execution of custodial sentences in the State of origin 
of the person concerned promotes the social reintegration of the person concerned once 
his/her sentence has been completed, a comparable situation exists only with regard to 
nationals of other States who are permanently resident in the requested State and thus have a 
certain degree of integration into the society of that State. 
Therefore, the Court of Justice held that the personal scope is limited to nationals of other 
States who reside permanently in a requested State and demonstrate a certain degree of 
integration into that State’s society
60
because they are in a comparable situation with 
nationals of the requested State. On the other hand, a national of a State being arrested at an 
airport of a requested State, while only transiting, would not fulfil the criterion of being in a 
comparable situation. 
If a requested person cannot be regarded as residing permanently in the requested State, the 
issue of their extradition is to be settled based on the applicable national or international 
law
61
.
60
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 November 2018, Raugevicius, C-247/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:898, 
paragraph 46. 
61
Idem, paragraph 48.

---

28