Commission notice

Article 21(1) TFEU provides that: ‘Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely 
within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties 
and by the measures adopted to give them effect.’ 
6
Based on the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality established under Article 18 TFEU, 
which provides that: ‘Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special 
provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.’ 
7
Judgment of 10 April 2018, Pisciotti, C-191/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:222; judgment of 13 November 
2018, Raugevicius, C-247/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:898; judgment of 2 April 2020, Ruska Federacija, C-897/19 
PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2020:262 and judgment of 17 December 2020, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin, C-398/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2020:1032.
8
Judgment of 2 April 2020, Ruska Federacija, C-897/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2020:262. 

---

7 
On 4 June 2020, the Council asked the Presidency to invite Eurojust and the European 
Judicial Network (EJN) to analyse how requests for the extradition of EU citizens by third 
States are handled in practice. They also agreed to make suggestions in this regard, in view of 
possible EU guidance to be developed by the Commission
9
.
As a response, Eurojust and the EJN published a joint report in November 2020
10
. The main 
challenges that were identified in this report included: 
 Uncertainty about which authority to approach in the Member State of nationality, 
which Member State should deal with and bear the costs of translation, and/or which 
judicial cooperation instrument is best applied to ensure prosecution in the Member 
State of nationality. 
 Different practices related to the extent of information provided, deadlines given for 
replies and decisions, and types of assessments carried out in the framework of the 
Petruhhin mechanism. 
 Tensions between obligations under EU law on the one hand, and bilateral and 
multilateral extradition treaties on the other. 
 Several parallel channels used to inform and transmit information, often leading to 
duplication of effort, uncertainty and confusion. 
Subsequently, in December 2020 the Council adopted conclusions on ‘The European arrest 
warrant and extradition procedures - current challenges and the way forward’
11
. The 
conclusions reiterated that ‘Following the judgments of the CJEU in the Petruhhin case and 
several subsequent rulings
12
, in handling such requests Member States are faced with two 
obligations: on the one hand, the duty to fulfil existing obligations under international law 
and to combat the risk that the offence concerned will go unpunished and, on the other hand, 
Member States that do not extradite their nationals are obliged, in accordance with the 
principles of freedom of movement and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, to 
protect citizens from other Member States as effectively as possible from measures that may 
deprive them of the rights of free movement and residence within the EU.’
There are further issues affecting extradition as identified in the Eurojust and EJN report. In 
its 2020 conclusions, the Council emphasised that ‘The practical experience of different 
Member States shows that there are cases where unfounded and abusive requests for 
extradition are submitted by third countries. The Council invites the Commission to consider 
the need, in the light of the results of the analysis prepared by Eurojust and the EJN, for 
further action, such as a suggestion for a common approach in dealing with potentially 
9
Council of the European Union Working Paper, Informal videoconference of the Ministers of Justice, 4 June 
2020: Preparation - Extradition of EU citizens to third countries - Presidency discussion paper, Document WK 
5231/2020 INIT. 
10
Joint report of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network on the extradition of EU citizens to third 
countries: https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/joint-report-eurojust-and-ejn-extradition-eu-citizens-third-countries. 
11
OJ C 419, 4.12.2020, p. 23–30, EUR-Lex - 52020XG1204(02) - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu).
12
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 10 April 2018, Pisciotti, C-191/16, 
ECLI:EU:C:2018:222; judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 November 2018, Raugevicius, C-247/17, 
ECLI:EU:C:2018:898; judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 April 2020, Ruska Federacija, C-897/19 PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2020:262 and judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 December 2020, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft 
Berlin, C-398/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1032. 

---

8 
abusive, including politically motivated, search and extradition requests from third countries. 
In this context, the best practices of the Member States should be taken into account’. 
For the purpose of preparing these guidelines, the Commission consulted the Member States 
through a questionnaire on extradition requests by third States. The Commission also drew up 
a table of extradition agreements and mutual legal assistance (MLA) agreements that Member 
States concluded with third States (available on the EJN web-site). In June and October 2021, 
the findings of the questionnaire were discussed in dedicated meetings of experts of Member 
States. The Commission also consulted various stakeholders and experts, including Eurojust 
and the EJN. 
These guidelines summarise the case-law of the Court of Justice. They also take into account 
experience that has been gained over the last five years in applying the Petruhhin mechanism 
across the EU, Iceland and Norway.