The responsibility of Member States to extradite individuals to third countries is generally within their jurisdiction. However, according to the ruling in Aleksei Petruhhin (Court of Justice, judgment of 6 September 2016, case C-182/15 [GC]), Member States must exercise this power in light of EU law, particularly when an extradition request may infringe on the fundamental rights of an EU citizen protected under the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This is particularly relevant when an EU citizen has exercised their right to free movement by moving to another Member State. For instance, in the case of Petruhhin, an Estonian citizen who was residing in Latvia when Russia requested his extradition, the national law of Latvia did not extend the same level of protection against extradition to foreign citizens as it did to Latvian nationals. The Court of Justice deemed such extradition of an EU citizen to a third State generally prohibited under Art. 18 TFEU and only acceptable if prosecution in the home Member State is impossible. The case also confirms previous rulings that the extradition of an EU citizen is not permissible if their fundamental rights under the Charter are endangered in the requesting State. Such rights include the prohibition against torture and degrading treatment. Therefore, a rigorous verification of the level of protection of human rights in the related third State must be undertaken by the Member State before deciding whether to grant the extradition request.

1. TITLE
speaker
Case analysis of:-
ALEKSEI PETRUHHIN
(C- 182/15)
Court of Justice of the European Union
Presented to:-
Stephen Coutts,
(Lecturer in European Union Law),
Edinburgh Law School,
The University of Edinburgh Law School.
Presented by:-
Navinya Nitin Kamble,
(Student in European Union Criminal Law),
Edinburgh Law School,
The University of Edinburgh Law School.

2. TABLE
OF
CONTENT:-
1) FACTS OF CASE:-
2) AUGSTĀKĀ TIESA (SUPREME COURT, LATVIA) OBSERVED:-
3) THE LATVIAN SUPREME COURT to THE COURT OF JUSTICE:-
4) COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:-

3. FACTS OF CASE:-

4. Aleksei Petruhhin
(Estonian National).
The subject of a priority
(Red Notice) on Interpol’s
website.
Arrested on 30th
September 2014 from
Bauska(Latvia) and placed
in provisional custody.
21st October 2014
Russia made an extradition
request to Latvian
authorities.
Request:-
Criminal proceedings were
initiated against Mr Petruhhin
and he had to be placed in
custody for attempted large-
scale, organised drug
trafficking.
Offences are punishable
with imprisonment of
between 8 and 20 years in
Russian law.
Latvian Public Prosecutor’s
Office authorised Mr
Petruhhin’s extradition to
Russia.
Mr Petruhhin filed an appeal against the
extradition decision:-
Per the agreement on Judicial Assistance &
Judicial Relations between the Baltic countries
of (11th Nov. 1992),
Mr. Petruhhin is protected by Latvia's law
against extradition. Latvian law prohibits the
extradition of Latvian nationals, and there's a
treaty that also prevents Latvia from extraditing
its own nationals to Russia.
AUGSTĀKĀ TIESA
(SUPREME COURT, LATVIA)
OBSERVED:-

5. AUGSTĀKĀ TIESA (SUPREME COURT, LATVIA) OBSERVED:-
Latvia has no legal restrictions preventing the
extradition of an Estonian national to Russia under
Latvian national law or any international agreements,
including those signed with Russia or other Baltic
countries.
Only Latvian nationals are protected under those
international agreements from extradition.
The absence of protection for Union citizens from
extradition, when they have relocated to a Member
State other than their own, may infringe upon their
right to receive equivalent protection as the nationals
of the Member State they reside in.

6. THE LATVIAN SUPREME COURT to THE COURT OF JUSTICE:-
1)1) Must nationals of one EU Member State
benefit from the rule prohibiting extradition of
their own nationals while applying an
extradition agreement with a non-member State,
considering the principle of non-discrimination
and freedom of movement of EU citizens under
Arts 18 and 21?
2)2) Does the requested Member State verify
that the extradition will not harm the rights
protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the EU under Arts 18 and 21?

7. COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:-
1.1. Confirmed that Mr. Petruhhin, falls
within the scope of the principle of
non-discrimination on grounds of
nationality as a Union citizen
exercising his right to move within the
European Union.
1.2. The National Rules on extradition at issue
give rise to a difference in treatment on the basis
if the person concerned is the national of the
Member State in question or a national of
another member state.
2.Such as Petruhhin is not a national of Latvia as he
is not being granted protection against extradition
as such of nationals of Latvia.
3. Such rules tend to affect the
freedom of citizens (Mr. Petruhhin) to
move within the EU and this is a
restriction on the freedom of movement
(Art. 21 TFEU).
1.4. Restriction can only be justified on
fundamental freedom (Art.21) if they
cannot be attained by less restrictive
measures (cit., para 41):- Based on
objective considerations and is
proportionate to a legitimate objective
of the national law
2.(cit., paras 34-38).
1.The objective of preventing the
risk of impunity for persons who
have committed an offence must
be considered a legitimate
objective in EU law
2.(cit., paras 35-37).

8. 1) To combat
impunity of a
person who is
present in a
territory other than
that in which he has
allegedly committed
an offence.
2) Allows offences
committed in the
territory of a state
by persons who
have fled that
territory not to
remain unpunished.
EXTRADITION
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:-
National rules which allow an extradition
request to be granted for the purposes of
prosecution and judgment in the non-member
state where the offence is allegedly committed
are appropriate to achieve the objective
pursued.

9. COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:-
Non- extradition of its own nationals can be counterbalanced by the possibility for the
requested member states to prosecute such nationals for offences of a serious nature
committed outside its territory?
A member state has no such jurisdiction to try cases where neither the victim or the
perpetrator is its own national.

10. COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:-
PRINCIPLE OF SINCERE COOPERATION-
Art. 4, para.3, TEU.
Exchange of information with the Member State must be given priority.
To afford:– The authoritiesof that state, in so far as they may (Under their
national law) to prosecute that person for offences committed outside their
territory, The opportunity to issue a European arrest warrant (for
prosecution). In cooperating accordingly with the Member State of which
the person concerned is a national and giving priority to that potential arrest
warrant over the extradition request.
COURT OF JUSTICE, JUDGMENT OF 5 APRIL 2016, CASE
C-404/15, PÁL ARANYOSI AND ROBERT CĂLDĂRARU V .
GENERALSTAATSANWALTSCHAFT BREMEN [GC],
PARA. 84):-
According to the charter, 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. (The charter is binding on EU
institutions and Member States and on national courts).
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 non-member state concerned, it is
bound to assess the existence of that risk when it decides on the
extradition request. (cit., para. 57). (Art. 19 of the Charter
Prohibits extradition to a state)
(Art.4 of the Charter:– Prohibition on torture and degrading
treatment and punishment, ál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru).
Competent authority of the requested Member state must rely on
information that is:- Objective, Reliable, Specific And Properly
Updated. cit., para. 82.
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute
itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the
Court’s decision which is similarly binding on
other nationals or tribunals before which a
similar issue is raised.
HOST MEMBER STATE ACT:-
Less prejudicial to the exercise of freedom of movement while
avoiding (as far as possible) the risk of impunity.
(cit., paras 47-49 & 43).

11. THANK YOU SO MUCH
AND
MY KIND ALL THE BEST TO EVERYONE!