Commission notice

2.2.2. Steps to be followed by the competent authorities when the nationality exception 
applies 
In cases of a request for extradition for the purpose of executing a sentence, the less 
prejudicial measure to the exercise of the right to free movement is for the requested State to 
assume responsibility for the execution of the sentence on its territory instead of extraditing 
the national of another State to the third State, where such a possibility is also provided for its 
own nationals. It is expected that the Court of Justice will further clarify the detailed steps to 
be followed (in particular the extent of obligations for States and whether a consent of a third 
State is required) in the pending case C-237/21
62
. 
2.2.3. Information exchange between the requested State and the State of nationality 
Articles 18 and 21 TFUE do not require the requested State to inform the State of nationality 
of a pending extradition request for an execution of a sentence or a detention order. However, 
the requested State is not prevented from contacting the State of nationality in order to obtain 
any relevant information it might find useful. 
62
Case C-237/21, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München. 

---

29 
3. 
Guidelines applicable to all States regardless of the nationality exception 
3.1. Fundamental rights assessment before an extradition 
3.1.1. Application of the Charter 
The Court of Justice held that the decision to extradite a Union citizen/IC/NO national, in a 
situation which comes within the scope of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 TFEU or Article 4 
of the EEA Agreement read together with Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, falls under the 
scope of EU law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter
63
. Therefore, the provisions 
of the Charter, and in particular Article 19 thereof, are applicable to such a decision.
Moreover, the existence of an international agreement of the Union on extradition is 
sufficient to trigger the application of the Charter. Therefore, the Charter also applies to 
extradition requests issued by the US or the UK respectively under the Agreement on 
extradition between the European Union and the United States of America
64
and the Trade 
and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy 
Community, of the one part, and the UK, of the other part
65
, even when there is no exercise of 
free movement within the EEA area. Moreover, in such cases the Charter applies also to 
nationals of third States and stateless persons. 
Where the Charter applies, a requested State must first verify that the extradition will not 
prejudice the rights referred to in Article 19 of the Charter
66
.
Under Article 19(2) of the Charter, no one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State 
where there is a serious risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other 
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Court of Justice further specified that the mere ‘existence of declarations and accession 
to international treaties guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights in principle are not in 
themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment where 
reliable sources have reported practices resorted to or tolerated by the authorities which are 
manifestly contrary to the principles of the European Convention for the Protection of 
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 
63
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2016, Petruhhin, C-182/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:630, 
paragraphs 52 and 53, and judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 April 2020, Ruska Federacija, C-897/19 PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2020:262, paragraph 63. Article 51(1) of the Charter provides: ‘1. The provisions of this Charter 
are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of 
subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect 
the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective 
powers and respecting the limits of the powers of the Union as conferred on it in the Treaties.’ 
64
OJ L 181, 19.7.2003, p. 27. 
65
OJ L 149, 30.4.2021, p. 10. 
66
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2016, Petruhhin, C-182/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:630, 
paragraph 60, order of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2017, Schotthöfer & Steiner v Adelsmayr, C-473/15, 
ECLI:EU:C:2017:633, judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 November 2018, Raugevicius, C-247/17, 
ECLI:EU:C:2018:898, paragraph 49, judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 April 2020, Ruska Federacija, C-
897/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2020:262, paragraphs 63 to 68. 

---

30 
It follows that, in so far as the competent authority of the requested Member State is in 
possession of evidence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of individuals in the 
requesting third State, it is bound to assess the existence of that risk when it is called upon to 
decide on the extradition of a person to that State (see, to that effect, as regards Article 4 of 
the Charter, judgment of 5 April 2016 in Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C-404/15 and 
C-659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198, paragraph 88). 
To that end, the competent authority of the requested Member State must rely on information 
that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated. That information may be obtained 
from, inter alia, judgments of international courts, such as judgments of the ECtHR, 
judgments of courts of the requesting third State, and also decisions, reports and other 
documents produced by bodies of the Council of Europe or under the aegis of the United 
Nations (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 April 2016 in Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C-404/15 
and C-659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198, paragraph 89)’
67
.