Extradition rejected despite arrest warrant from Russia

26.01.2018 - Cologne - With an Interpolred notice, the Russian authorities are searching for the persecuted for alleged "membership in a criminal organisation","organisation of a murder" and for corruption offences. The accusations are completely unfounded and constructed.

In the extradition proceedings before the Cologne Higher Regional Court, we raised numerous objections against the admissibility of extradition to the Russian Federation. And we had the decisive support of an equally courageous and brave Russian colleague who helped to clear up the dark background of the case in Russia.

questionability of the Russian arrest warrant

The Cologne Higher Regional Court (6 AuslA61/15-46) recognized the questionability of the Russian accusations and confronted the Russian authorities with questions to which they had no answers in the end. This was then one of the rare cases in which the Higher Regional Court investigated the suspicion in the extradition proceedings.

according to the European Convention on Extradition

The case is judged according to the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 (EuAlÜbk), to which the Federal Republic of Germany joined with effect from 1 January 1977 and the Russian Federation with effect from 9 March 2000. According to EuAlÜbk, the examination of suspicion is a rare exception in extradition proceedings.

However, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne stated here:" The extradition of the persecuted person for the alleged offence complex "organization and preparation of a murder" is opposed by the missing suspicion of the offence according to § 10 para. 2 IRG. ..... Such an examination is only admissible and necessary in narrowly defined exceptional cases if and to the extent that there is sufficient evidence that the requesting State abuses its right to extradition, or if special circumstances of the case give rise to fears that, in the event of extradition, the person being prosecuted would be subject to proceedings, that indispensable minimum standard within the meaning of the international law are violated. 25 GG, and the examination of the suspected offence can provide information on this. Such sufficient indications, which exceptionally require the examination of the suspicion of the crime in accordance with § 10 para. 2 IRG, are available from the senate's point of view."

The extradition procedure shall not verify whether the person being prosecuted has committed a criminal offence

In contractual extradition traffic, an examination of sufficient suspicion pursuant to § 10 (2) IRG generally does not take place, but the facts stated in the extradition documents are assumed to be correct. However, even in the case of non-contractual extradition traffic, the suspicion check is an absolute exception, which is only justified in special circumstances. The German extradition procedure is not a criminal procedure, but merely a procedure to support foreign criminal prosecution. It therefore leaves the examination of the suspicion to the foreign proceedings. The IRG transfers to the German Higher Regional Court, which has to decide on the admissibility of extradition for criminal prosecution, only the examination of the - formal - safeguards created in the extradition provisions against inadmissible support of the foreign proceedings.

An examination of suspicion is, however, required ...

... if and to the extent that there are sufficient indications that the requesting state is abusively asserting its claim to extradition. Or the special circumstances of the case give reason to fear that the persecuted person, in the event of his extradition, would be subject to proceedings which would violate indispensable principles recognised by all constitutional states and the extradition would thus violate the minimum standard binding under international law within the meaning of Article 25 of the Basic Law.