In the article, Liliia Kuznets, Counsel at VB Partners, and Myroslava Varanytska, an intern at VB Partners and a second-year Master’s student at the Sorbonne, analyse the reasons for and potential consequences of France’s refusal to extradite an individual to Ukraine.
On 29 October 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal refused Ukraine’s extradition request. The request was submitted in proceedings conducted by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office in respect of Ukrainian businessman Kostiantyn Zhevago.
After a comprehensive assessment of the case’s circumstances, the court focused on the risk of violating Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to a fair trial.
Traditionally, since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, French courts, like courts in other jurisdictions, have primarily justified refusals to extradite individuals to Ukraine on security grounds related to martial law. Another common ground has been the risk of a violation of Article 3 ECHR, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
However, the decision under review is exceptional. The defence presented a comprehensive set of arguments supporting refusal of extradition, including Ukraine’s derogation from Article 6 ECHR, the expansion of prosecutorial powers under martial law, numerous alleged violations of the right to a fair trial and the right to defence, and security risks. On these grounds, the French court conducted a systemic analysis of how Ukraine’s criminal justice system functioned under the derogations introduced in connection with martial law.
Does France’s refusal indicate a crisis of confidence in the Ukrainian justice system, or is it merely an isolated response to a carefully constructed defence strategy?
Extradition Proceedings in France
Extradition is both a political and legal process. The Court of Appeal, acting as the court of first instance, must decide whether extradition is permissible. The decision may be appealed to the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation. If the court issues a favourable decision, the Prime Minister adopts an extradition decree. That decree may then be challenged before the Council of State, France’s highest administrative court, which generally follows the position of the Court of Cassation or the Court of Appeal.
This case ended at the very first stage – with the opinion of the Court of Appeal. It can therefore be concluded that the prosecutor regarded the decision as having no realistic prospect of appeal. Interestingly, this episode also illustrates a significant difference between French and Ukrainian prosecutors in challenging court decisions.
Request for Additional Information
One notable element of the case was the court’s request for additional assurances from Ukraine. In particular, the court sought clarification regarding procedural safeguards, derogations from Article 6 ECHR in connection with amendments to Article 615 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the specific conditions of detention.
Such a procedure is relatively rare. Its use in this case demonstrates that the judges carried out a detailed assessment of the facts presented. This may be viewed as a substantive form of in concreto review of compliance with the Convention.
France’s Approach to Extradition Cases
Although France is often regarded as a benchmark in human rights protection, refusals of extradition remain extremely rare in French judicial and diplomatic practice.
A comprehensive review of French case law shows that, apart from compliance with procedural requirements such as double criminality and limitation periods, extradition is refused only in exceptional circumstances. Such a refusal requires concrete and substantiated evidence of a risk of violating the ECHR.
This form of in concreto review has developed into what may be described as a case-by-case doctrine. French practice therefore does not presume that a particular state or category of criminal proceedings is inherently unreliable. Instead, the court assesses each case individually, considering only the specific circumstances and risks demonstrated by the defence.
This approach is confirmed by a decision issued just one month before the ruling discussed here. In that case, the court permitted extradition to Ukraine because the defence failed to demonstrate specific circumstances indicating a risk of violating rights guaranteed by the ECHR.
Distinctive Features of the Case
Although Ukraine remains a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, the introduction of martial law was accompanied by derogations from certain Convention obligations. In particular, these derogations concerned procedural guarantees in criminal proceedings. These circumstances became the subject of detailed examination by the French court.
In previous case law and in common defence arguments, martial law had primarily been considered through the prism of Article 3 of the Convention and risks to an individual’s physical safety. In the decision under review, however, the court conducted a more in-depth assessment of the potential risk of a violation of Article 6 ECHR in the event of extradition.
The court’s analysis therefore focused not on the mere existence of martial law or armed conflict as a security issue, but on the specific procedural consequences of the derogations introduced and their impact on the right to a fair trial.
The decision thus demonstrates an evolution in judicial scrutiny of extradition to Ukraine: from a formal consideration of extraordinary circumstances to a substantive assessment of whether the requesting state can guarantee respect for an individual’s fundamental rights.
At the request of the defence, the court effectively weighed the compatibility of certain criminal procedure mechanisms introduced under martial law against the basic guarantees of the right to a fair trial.
Accordingly, extradition scrutiny in relation to Ukraine has shifted from Article 3 ECHR to Article 6 ECHR.
International Context
In the broader international context, the question arises whether the evolution of extradition scrutiny may also reflect the overall deterioration of the global security environment.
While after the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the main focus of assessment was on risks arising from armed conflict, the international humanitarian environment has faced new challenges in recent years.
The armed conflict in the Gaza Strip, the escalation of interstate tensions between Israel and Iran, as well as other regional conflicts, have significantly increased the number of people in need of international protection. This context has raised new questions for European states regarding the limits of extradition cooperation.
The decision under review confirms that a mere reference to martial law or armed conflict is insufficient to justify refusing extradition.
The French court conducts an in concreto review, assessing the specific risk of a violation of the individual’s Convention rights. In this case, the decisive factor was not the existence of martial law itself, but the defence’s properly substantiated arguments.
The reasoning was based, among other things, on the argument that applying certain procedural rules introduced under the derogation regime could violate the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 ECHR.
This exceptional decision joins the relatively small body of French cases in which extradition has been refused and contributes to the broader discussion on bringing Ukraine’s justice system closer to the European standard of a fair trial.
** In concreto review of compliance with the Convention is a judicial mechanism used to determine whether the application of a provision of national law violates international treaties, in particular the ECHR. Unlike in abstracto review, where legislation is assessed in general, in concreto review focuses on the consequences of applying the law to a particular individual in their specific circumstances.*
