Overview
Ukraine has been a member of the Council of Europe since 9 November 1995 and a contracting party to the European Convention on Extradition (Europäisches Auslieferungsübereinkommen, EuAlÜbk) since 11 September 1997. It has ratified the 1st, 2nd and 4th Additional Protocols; the 3rd Additional Protocol of 10 Nov 2010 was signed on 30 Apr 2014 and ratified on 1 June 2019. Ukraine is not an EU member; the European Arrest Warrant does not apply. It has been an EU accession candidate since 23 June 2022, and accession negotiations have been ongoing since 25 June 2024.
Special war situation since 24 Feb 2022: Since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion, martial law has been continuously in force in Ukraine (imposed by the President, regularly extended by Parliament). For extradition relations this gives rise to three overlapping problem areas: first, the conscription obligation for men aged 18 to 60; second, the partial relocation of criminal proceedings to courts in the western parts of the country, or their conduct as remote hearings by video link; third, reliably documented structural deficiencies in the Ukrainian detention system (CPT report October 2023, published 2024; ECtHR with 694 cases under the Committee of Ministers' enhanced supervision, as at 31 Aug 2025).
German Higher Regional Court case law from 2024/2025 (OLG Nuremberg, OLG Cologne, OLG Dresden, OLG Munich) and the BVerfG decision of 31 Jan 2025 (2 BvR 106/25) show that, since the start of the war, extraditions to Ukraine have been declared admissible only subject to carefully reviewed assurances — a prison in the west of the country, international standards, communication with defense counsel, protection against conscription. Since 2022, the defense in Ukraine cases has become one of the most demanding fields of German extradition law in substantive terms.
Legal basis
Extradition to Ukraine is governed by the European Convention on Extradition of 13 Dec 1957 (EuAlÜbk, Federal Law Gazette / BGBl. 1964 II p. 1369) in conjunction with the 1st Additional Protocol (15 Oct 1975), the 2nd Additional Protocol (17 Mar 1978), the 3rd Additional Protocol (10 Nov 2010) and the 4th Additional Protocol (20 Sep 2012) — all four ratified by Germany and Ukraine. The European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 Apr 1959 (EuRhÜbk) applies in addition.
Domestically, on the German side the IRG applies (Sections 1 ff. IRG); for German citizens, Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG remains a bar. On the Ukrainian side, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Кримінальний процесуальний кодекс України, KPK) is decisive, in particular Chapter 44 on international mutual legal assistance (Art. 541 ff. KPK). The central authority for international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters is the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice (Міністерство юстиції); the Prosecutor General's Office (Офіс Генерального прокурора) is responsible for operational criminal prosecution.
On the German side, the Higher Regional Courts are competent in the admissibility proceedings (Sections 13 ff. IRG); the granting decision is made by the General Public Prosecutor's Offices, and in matters of principle by the Federal Office of Justice. On the Ukrainian side, the district and appellate courts decide; at the apex of the judiciary stand the Supreme Court of Ukraine (Верховний Суд) and the Constitutional Court (Конституційний Суд).
With the suspension of Russia from the Council of Europe on 16 Mar 2022, Ukraine has in recent years also become a central actor in ECtHR proceedings, in particular regarding the conflict with Russia and the internal situation of the prison system.
Country-specific issues in Ukraine
Martial law and conscription: Since 24 Feb 2022, martial law has been continuously in force in Ukraine. The conscription obligation applies to men aged 18 to 60; by the Act of 16 Apr 2024 (entering into force 18 May 2024) the registration and conscription obligations were tightened. In extradition proceedings, the question must therefore be clarified whether the requested person, after extradition — independently of the criminal proceedings — would be subject to conscription and thereby exposed to danger to life. This constellation raises questions under Article 2 ECHR (right to life) and Article 3 ECHR, which are increasingly addressed in the 2024/2025 Higher Regional Court case law.
Diplomatic assurances on detention conditions and the prison: Standard practice is to obtain an assurance that the requested person will not be detained in the immediate vicinity of the front line, but in a facility in the western parts of the country (e.g. Lvivska Ustanova Vykonannia Pokaran No. 19, Lviv). This constellation is central to OLG Nuremberg, decision of 22 Oct 2024 — Ausl OAus 43/24; OLG Cologne, decision of 29 Oct 2024 — 3 OAus 66/24; OLG Dresden, decision of 9 Aug 2024 — OAus 174/24; OLG Munich, decision of 23 Dec 2024 — 1 OAus 66/24. By its decision of 31 Jan 2025 (2 BvR 106/25), the BVerfG declined to accept for decision a constitutional complaint against the OLG Munich decision.
Remote hearings by video link: In several cases it was assured that the criminal proceedings would be conducted in a western judicial district, or that the requested person would participate from a western prison by video link in proceedings before a court in eastern Ukraine. The rule-of-law requirements for such a remote hearing have been developed in the case law of the ECtHR (ECtHR, judgment of 5 Jan 2007 — 45106/04 Marcello Viola v. Italy, paras. 63 ff.); they are particularly strict, above all at first instance on the facts.
CPT report October 2023 (published 2024): The first CPT report on Ukraine after the start of the war. The Committee continues to document high proportions of pre-trial detention, the resulting overcrowding, informal hierarchies among detainees (the "crime caste" / "crime hierarchy" phenomenon) and poor material conditions in several facilities. At the same time, the CPT expressly acknowledges the efforts of the Ukrainian authorities under wartime conditions.
ECtHR structural deficiencies — 694 cases under enhanced supervision (as at 31 Aug 2025): Focus areas: unlawful arrests, excessively long pre-trial detention, ill-treatment by police, poor detention conditions, inadequate medical care, excessively long proceedings. The Committee of Ministers is calling for systemic reforms.
Occupied territories: Connections of the place of the offense or of residence to the territories occupied by Russia (Crimea, parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson) must be carefully reviewed — gathering evidence and obtaining assurances become effectively impossible insofar as the Ukrainian judiciary has no access.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
The Ukrainian detention system is administered by the State Criminal-Executive Service (Державна кримінально-виконавча служба України) and consists of pre-trial detention facilities (Слідчі ізолятори / SIZO) and penal colonies (Виправні колонії / Vypravni Kolonii) of various security levels. The central SIZOs are the Lukyanivska SIZO in Kyiv, the Kharkiv SIZO and the Lviv SIZO.
The CPT report on the visit of 2–13 October 2023 (published 2024) — the first report after the start of the war — documents persistent structural problems: overcrowding as a result of high proportions of pre-trial detention; informal hierarchies (a "criminal subculture") among inmates, with influence over day-to-day prison life that is partly tolerated by the authorities; and inadequate material conditions in parts of the system (ventilation, hygiene, heating — the last of these aggravated under wartime conditions by power outages). At the same time, the CPT expressly acknowledges the considerable efforts of the Ukrainian authorities under wartime conditions.
From the perspective of the German Higher Regional Courts, the following standards have emerged since 2024: a reliable assurance regarding the specifically envisaged prison (ideally in the western parts of the country, far from the front), confirmation of the cell floor space in line with the CPT standard (at least 4 m² per person where there is multiple occupancy), securing communication with defense counsel, protection against conscription during the period of detention, and access to medical care. These requirements can be found in OLG Nuremberg 22 Oct 2024, OLG Cologne 29 Oct 2024, OLG Dresden 9 Aug 2024 and BGH 16 Jan 2025 — 4 ARs 11/24.
The defense must examine whether the assurances given are sufficiently concrete and reliable. In the literature (cf. ZIS 3/2025) it is critically discussed whether the Ukrainian assurances can be reliably maintained over time under the dynamic conditions of war — in particular in the event of a possible shift in the front line or a war-related transfer of inmates.
Lines of defense
The defense in Ukraine extradition cases has gained considerably in complexity since 24 Feb 2022. The following approaches are central:
- Section 73 sentence 1 IRG in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 of the EU Charter — detention conditions: The central point of review. Concrete requirements for assurances regarding the prison (western parts of the country, the Lviv region), cell floor space in line with the CPT standard, supply of necessities, contact with defense counsel. ECtHR standard: Aranyosi and Căldăraru (ECJ C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU); for third states Soering v. UK (ECtHR 1989).
- Article 2 ECHR in conjunction with martial law and conscription: For men aged 18–60, a review of whether conscription would be threatened after extradition — obtain an assurance of "protection against conscription" or a certificate of unfitness for service. The Conscription Act of 16 Apr 2024 (in force 18 May 2024) tightened registration.
- Section 73 sentence 1 IRG in conjunction with Article 6 ECHR — fair trial and remote hearing: For a remote hearing by video link, the standard is Marcello Viola v. Italy (ECtHR 45106/04 of 5 Jan 2007) — stricter requirements at first instance on the facts, securing unrestricted communication with defense counsel.
- Dual criminality (Art. 2 ECE): A minimum penalty of 1 year threatened on both sides; for enforcement, at least 4 months of sentence remaining (Section 3(2) IRG). For special Ukrainian offenses (collaboration, treason, evasion of military service under martial law), a careful examination of subsumption is required.
- Political offenses (Art. 3 ECE in conjunction with Section 6(1) IRG): Where allegations have a political or war-related dimension (collaboration with Russia, espionage, propaganda), the distinction analysis takes on considerable weight.
- Asylum and protection status as a bar (Section 6(2) IRG): Requested persons with pending or granted asylum proceedings / subsidiary protection on account of a Russian or pro-Russian risk of persecution may not be extradited.
- Connection of the place of the offense to occupied territories: Where the facts arise in Crimea or the oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson occupied since 2014/2022 — gathering evidence and Ukrainian prosecutorial jurisdiction are effectively problematic.
- ECtHR structural deficiencies — 694 cases: Where allegations relate to unlawful arrests, excessively long pre-trial detention or police ill-treatment, there is a heightened duty to give reasons for admissibility.
- Own nationals (Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG): German nationals are not extradited; review the connection to the place of the offense and the assurance of return.
- Rule of specialty (Art. 14 ECE): Limitation to the offenses granted; for supplementary requests, a consent requirement — under martial law, an increased burden on the specialty review carried out by the German authorities.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): The standard remedy after a declaration of admissibility. Although the BVerfG did not accept the complaint in 2 BvR 106/25 (decision of 31 Jan 2025), the route nonetheless remains open where a detention-conditions or Article 2 ECHR complaint is carefully prepared.
- Interim relief before the ECtHR (Rule 39): Where there is an acute risk of extradition and credibly substantiated Article 3 / Article 2 risks, an interim measure may be requested under Rule 39 of the ECtHR Rules of Court.
Legal representation in Ukrainian extradition proceedings
An extradition case is a specialized mutual-legal-assistance procedure that goes beyond classic criminal defense. Engaging a defense lawyer specialized in extradition law at an early stage is regularly decisive — not only after the formal extradition arrest warrant has been issued, but already from the moment of an arrest based on an Interpol notice, an SIS alert or a European Arrest Warrant.
As a Certified Specialist in Criminal Law with a focus on extradition law, I advise and represent affected persons nationwide before the competent Higher Regional Courts and in constitutional complaint proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court.