The European Union policy on extradition to third states: The Aleksei Petruhhin Case

The policy on extradition of criminals, based on the change of balance between the criteria for resolving conflicts of criminal jurisdiction, which are the inevitability of punishment, the public-law tie of a person with the state and protection of sovereign interests, is implemented in the European Union (EU) in a specific way. The starting point in approving the EU policy on extradition to third states was the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case on extradition of Aleksei Petruhhin. Therefore, the aim of the research is to analyze the position of the European Court of Justice reflected in the decision on this case, to determine to what extent it does not comply with the system of criteria for resolving conflicts of criminal jurisdiction, threatening the stability of the European extradition regime, and to propose solutions to the corresponding problems. The position of the European Court of Justice, which is to recommend to refuse to extradite a citizen of an EU Member State to a third state that does not have an extradition agreement with the EU and to inform this Member State of the situation in order for it to send a European arrest warrant for that citizen, demonstrates the EU commitment to completely ignore the criterion of protection of sovereign interests and adhere to the criterion of inevitability of punishment, conditioned by the criterion of a public-law tie, when shaping its policy on extradition to third states, in particular, to the Russian Federation. One way to overcome this approach that undermines the common European system of extradition could be the recognition on the multilateral level of a special jurisdictional rule that establishes, according to the criterion of protection of the sovereign interest, the priority of the protective principle and the principle of passive personality. At the same time, it is important to slightly limit the criterion of a public-law tie, softening the restrictions concerning double criminality and non-extradition by states of their own citizens. The EU must become a party to an international agreement containing this rule. There are no legal obstacles to form an extradition agreement between Russia and the EU. However, in the absence of such an agreement and taking into account the new approach of the EU to the policy on extradition formed by the analyzed case, the fruitfulness of cooperation between the EU and Russia decreases. In any case, there is a clear need to resume the process aimed at the development of a legal framework for bilateral cooperation between the EU and Russia in criminal matters.

Keywords

Authors

References