Extradition to Ukraine: Oui, No, Maybe?

On 29 October 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal handed down a judgment refusing the extradition of a requested person to Ukraine. The refusal was based on the Court’s finding that, due to the chilling effects of martial law on the fairness of trials and judicial processes in Ukraine, the State is currently unable to ensure fundamental procedural guarantees and the protection of defence rights. Noting that martial law remains in force throughout the Ukrainian territory and that the Ukrainian government has notified the Council of Europe and United Nations of its continued derogation from international human rights conventions, the French court rejected the argument that such derogations would apply only to areas affected by active military operations. It instead held that they risk causing prejudice to the fundamental principles underpinning the right to a fair trial.

This recent judgment confirms the general approach adopted by French courts with respect to extradition requests emanating from Ukraine. The reasoning of the Paris Court aligns with previous decisions from 2023 by the Chambery Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation in similar proceedings. Concerns relating to Article 6 ECHR and the right to a fair trial appear to be at the forefront of judicial considerations in French courtrooms. But is the same true elsewhere?

During 2022 and 2023, courts across several European jurisdictions refused numerous Ukrainian extradition requests due to concerns arising from the consequences of the Russian invasion- primarily the safety of prisoners in areas affected by fighting and the government’s derogation from important human rights obligations. A couple of years into the conflict, however, the position began to gradually shift, with an increasing number of requests being granted across Europe. It is understood that 75 individuals were extradited to Ukraine in 2024, and 26 more during the first two months of 2025. In the first half of 2025 alone, Ukraine’s General Prosecutor’s Office issued 155 extradition requests. What has contributed to this shift is more than merely the passage of time or a gradual desensitisation among European neighbours to the far-reaching effects of the war. Crucial factors appear to include increased cooperation between the General Prosecutor’s Office and foreign authorities, as well as the provision of more robust assurances regarding prison conditions and safety in detention.

This evolving approach is particularly evident in Italian jurisprudence. In September 2024, the Court of Appeal of Bolzano rejected a Ukrainian extradition request on the basis that the assurances provided were insufficient to dispel a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR, owing to the effects of the conflict on the prison population and its safety. In line with the French approach, the court also noted the risk of weakened legal safeguards stemming from the suspension of international treaty provisions. However, as early as September 2024, the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation set- and clarified- the tone. In its judgment, the Court held that extradition to Ukraine is possible, notwithstanding the ongoing armed conflict, precisely because the assurances before it indicated that human rights and Article 6 ECHR guarantees are fully respected in areas not subject to Russian occupation, and that martial-law restrictions apply only in exceptional circumstances.

The issue also came before Westminster Magistrates’ Court last year. Although the matters for which the Requested Person’s extradition was sought from the UK were unrelated to the conflict, many of the fair-trial and prison-related issues still turned on the effects of the war. The outcome was somewhat more nuanced than the positions adopted by the French and Italian higher courts. Although some findings were made with respect to prison conditions and fair trial that supported extradition, the Requested Person was eventually discharged on Article 8 ECHR, partly due to his personal circumstances, and inevitably, due to the reality of sending someone back to a war zone.

A more focussed assessment of the merits of Article 6 and Article 3 issues in the Ukrainian context may yet come before the British courts. For the time being, extradition law remains a battleground where tensions between political and international-relations considerations and the imperative of human rights protection continue to play out.