Commission notice

 

---

9 
1. Summary of the case-law of the Court of Justice 
Extradition requests can be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or 
executing a custodial sentence or a detention order.
In relation to the first category - extradition requests issued for the purpose of conducting a 
criminal prosecution, the Court of Justice has developed the so-called “Petruhhin 
doctrine”
13
. 
In relation to the second category - extradition requests issued for the purpose of executing a 
custodial sentence or detention order, the only case of reference so far has been the 
Raugevicius judgment
14
. Currently, another case is pending before the Court of Justice 
concerning an extradition request for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence
15
. 
1.1. Extradition requests for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2016, Petruhhin, C-182/15
16
 
The Petruhhin judgment is the first case where the Court of Justice held that an EU Member 
State faced with an extradition request from a third State concerning a national of another EU 
Member State is obliged to initiate a consultation procedure with the Member State of 
nationality of the EU citizen, thus giving the latter the opportunity to prosecute its citizen by 
means of an EAW.
Facts of the case 
The case related to an extradition request issued by the Russian authorities to Latvia in 
relation to an Estonian national, Mr Petruhhin, accused of attempted large-scale, organised 
drug-trafficking. The Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Latvia authorised the 
extradition to Russia. However, Mr Petruhhin filed an application against the extradition 
decision on the ground that, under the treaty between the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of 
Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania on judicial assistance and judicial relations, he enjoyed 
the same rights in Latvia as a Latvian national, including protection from unjustified 
extradition. 
The referred questions 
The Latvian Supreme Court asked the Court of Justice whether, for the purposes of applying 
an extradition agreement concluded between a Member State and a non-Member State 
(Latvia and Russia), the nationals of another Member State must benefit, in the light of the 
principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality under Article 18 TFEU and the 
right to free movement and of residence of Union citizens under Article 21(1) TFEU, from 
the rule which prohibits the extradition by the requested Member State of its own nationals. 
13
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2016, Petruhhin, C-182/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:630. 
14
Judgment of 13 November 2018, Raugevicius, C-247/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:898. 
15
Case C-237/21, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München. 
16
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2016, Petruhhin, C-182/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:630. 

---

10 
The Latvian Supreme Court also asked whether the requested Member State (namely, the 
Member State from which a non-member State requests the extradition of a national of 
another Member State, in this case Latvia) must verify (and, if necessary, according to which 
criteria) that the extradition will not prejudice the rights protected by the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union
17
(the Charter). 
Reasoning and reply of the Court of Justice 
Preliminarily, the Court of Justice specified that, although the rules on extradition in principle 
fall under the competence of the Member States, where there is no international agreement 
between the European Union and the third country concerned, a situation such as that at issue 
in the main proceedings, still falls within the scope of application of the Treaties within the 
meaning of Article 18 TFEU, since it involves the exercise of the freedom to move and reside 
within the territory of the Member States, as conferred by Article 21 TFEU.
A Member State is not required to grant every Union citizen who has moved within its 
territory the same protection against extradition as that granted to its own nationals.
In the absence of rules of EU law governing extradition between the Member States and a 
third State, it is, however, necessary, in order to combat the risk of impunity while at the 
same time safeguarding EU nationals from measures liable to deprive them of the right to 
freedom of movement, to implement all the cooperation and mutual assistance mechanisms 
provided for in the criminal field under EU law. Consequently, the exchange of information 
with the Member State of which the person concerned is a national must be given priority in 
order to afford the authorities of that Member State, in so far as they have jurisdiction 
pursuant to their national law to prosecute that person for offences committed outside their 
territory, the opportunity to issue an EAW for the purposes of prosecution. In cooperating 
accordingly with the Member State of which the person concerned is a national and giving 
priority to that potential EAW over the extradition request, the host Member State acts in a 
manner which is less prejudicial to the exercise of freedom of movement while avoiding, as 
far as possible, the risk of impunity. The EAW is considered to be equally effective as the 
extradition in achieving the objective of preventing the risk of impunity for a person alleged 
to have committed a criminal offence. 
The Court of Justice also found that where a Member State receives a request from a third 
State seeking the extradition of a national of another Member State, the requested Member 
State must verify that the extradition will not prejudice the rights referred to in Article 19 of 
the Charter
18
. 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 
third State concerned, it is bound to assess the existence of that risk when it decides on the 
extradition request. 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 
European Court of Human Rights, judgments of courts of the non-member State concerned, 
17
OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 389. 
18
Article 19(2) of the Charter provides: ‘No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there 
is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading 
treatment or punishment.’ 

---

11 
and also decisions, reports and other documents produced by bodies of the Council of Europe 
or under the aegis of the United Nations.