You are here:

CJEU - C-182/15 / Opinion

Aleksei Petruhhin v. Latvijas Republikas Ģenerālprokuratūra

Policy area:
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding Body type:
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding Body:
Advocate General
Type:
Opinion
Decision date:
10/05/2016

Key facts of the case:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — First paragraph of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21(1) TFEU — Request for the extradition to Russia of a national of one Member State present on the territory of another Member State — Refusal of a Member State to extradite its own nationals — Difference in treatment on the ground of nationality — Whether justified — Combating impunity — Verification of the guarantees provided for in Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:

  1. In the light of all of the foregoing consideration, I propose that the questions submitted by the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia) should be answered as follows:

    In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21(1) TFEU should be interpreted as meaning that they do not require that a national of a Member State present on the territory of another Member State who is the subject of an extradition request by a third State should benefit from the same rule as that which protects the nationals of that other Member State against extradition.

    In order to ensure respect for Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the individual circumstances of the person who is the subject of an extradition request, the judicial authority of the requested Member State, when faced with evidence of the existence of deficiencies which may be systemic or generalised, or which may affect certain groups of people that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated, is bound to determine whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, there are substantial grounds to believe that, following his extradition to the requesting third State, that citizen of the Union will run a real risk of being subject in that State to inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of that provision.