The Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation received a request from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Estonia to extradite the applicant to the Republic of Estonia for criminal prosecution. The Deputy Prosecutor General granted the extradition request, which was then upheld by the St. Petersburg City Court upon the applicant’s appeal. The applicant then filed an appeal complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Judicial Board for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the Lower Court Ruling, rejecting the appeal of the applicant.
- The European Convention on Extradition, dated 13 December 1957, which entered into force on 9 March 2000 (the Extradition Convention).
- The Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters dated 22 January 1993, which entered into force in the Russian Federation on 10 December 1994 (the Minsk Convention).
- Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
The applicant faced charges in the Republic of Estonia related to large-scale drugs trafficking for significant financial gain. He was declared wanted and for remand into custody by the Harju County Court in Estonia. After being detained in St. Petersburg by an Interpol international search request, the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation granted Estonia's extradition request. This was upheld by the St. Petersburg City Court upon the applicant’s appeal. The applicant then filed an appeal complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant argued that the extradition order was unlawful and unfounded. He cited the absence of a currently effective legal assistance treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Estonia. Thereby, the applicant asserted that, by being born in the USSR and residing in the Russian Federation during a specific period in the early 1990s (as determined by the Naursky District Court of the Chechen Republic of 22 October 2014, the Naursky Court Ruling), he should not be extradited to another state. He requested the cancellation of the extradition order and asked to have the extradition to the Estonian authorities declared unlawful.
In objections to the appeal complaint, the Russian State Prosecutor pointed to the untenability of the arguments of the applicant. The prosecutor asked the Supreme Court to leave the lower court ruling unchanged and dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation does not provide any more details about the prosecutor’s legal argument or general position in this case.
The Supreme Court ruled that Article 462 Part 1 of the Russian Federation's Code of Criminal Procedure applied to the current situation. The provision provides for the extradition of foreign nationals or stateless persons to another state for criminal prosecution or the execution of a sentence in light of the applicable international treaties (including the Extradition Convention and the Minsk Convention) or the reciprocity principle between the Republic of Estonia and the Russian Federation.
The applicant was confirmed to be stateless in accordance with documents submitted to the Court. The alleged offence under the Estonian law is also codified in Russian criminal law and carries penalties specified in the Criminal Code. The offence the applicant is accused of in Estonia is punishable under Russian law as per Article 228.1, Part 3, Paragraph "g" of the Criminal Code and carries a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.
While the Court acknowledged discrepancies between the Russian and Estonian criminal code provisions in relation to certain criteria for the offence and its classification, it held that these do not justify refusal of the extradition. Additionally, the prescribed statute of limitations for prosecuting the applicant under either Russian and Estonian law had not expired and the applicant lacked immunity from criminal prosecution.
Estonia assured the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation that the applicant would only face charges specified in the extradition request. Upon completing his sentence, the applicant would be able to leave Estonia without facing expulsion, transfer, or extradition to a third state without Russia's consent. Additionally, Estonia guaranteed that the applicant would not face persecution based on race, religion, nationality, or political beliefs, in accordance with international law. The Supreme Court was satisfied with the guarantees provided by Estonia.
The Court believed that the extradition request aligned with the requirements of the Minsk Convention. Without providing much reasoning, the Supreme Court also clarified that the applicant’s arguments that the treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Estonia on legal assistance dated 26 January 1993 was not in force were not based on the laws of the Russian Federation.
The Supreme Court reviewed the arguments that the applicant may be recognised as a national of the Russian Federation by birth. The Court held that these arguments and circumstances were duly investigated by the court of first instance and found no reason to disagree with the lower court ruling.
The Court confirmed that the Naursky Court Ruling, which established the legal fact of the applicant's residence in the territory of the Russian Federation from November 1991 to April 1992, was quashed by a ruling of the Naursky District Court of the Chechen Republic dated 8 May 2015 on newly discovered circumstances. From the available data in the court file, the court concluded that the applicant had not applied to the relevant state authorities to acquire a Russian nationality or refugee status in the Russian Federation.
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court ruling that the applicant is not a Russian national, and has not applied for Russian nationality or refugee status in the Russian Federation. Neither the Extradition Convention, the Minsk Convention, nor the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provided obstacles to the applicant’s extradition.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation affirmed the Lower Court Ruling, and dismissed the applicant's appeal.
NA
- Naursky District Court of the Chechen Republic of 22 October 2014.
- Naursky District Court of the Chechen Republic dated 8 May 2015.
There was no third party intervention in this case. The participation of a prosecutor is obligatory for these types of cases.