SUMBAYEV proti Gruzii

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 45240/22
Yaroslav Vladimirovich SUMBAYEV
against Georgia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 May and 24 June 2025 as a Chamber composed of:

Faris Vehabović, Acting President,
Lado Chanturia,
Tim Eicke,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
Anne Louise Bormann,
Sebastian Răduleţu,
András Jakab, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 September 2022,

Having regard to the decision to give notice to the Georgian Government (“the Government”) of the applicant’s complaints concerning Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application,

Having regard to the parties’ observations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

introduction

1. The present case concerns, under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, post-extradition proceedings. The applicant notably alleges that, according to the doctrine of speciality, Georgia should have withheld its consent to Russia’s intention to bring new criminal charges against him.

THE FACTS

2. The applicant, Mr Yaroslav Sumbayev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1990 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Russian Federation. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Makarova and Mr V. Shukhardin, lawyers practising in Strasbourg and Moscow.

3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr B. Dzamashvili, of the Ministry of Justice.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Extradition proceedings

5. On 5 November 2018 the applicant was arrested in Georgia pursuant to a Red Notice issued by Interpol. On 7 November a court authorised his detention pending extradition proceedings.

6. On 13 November 2018 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation (“the Russian public prosecution authorities”) submitted a request to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia (“the CPPO”) for the applicant’s extradition on the basis of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases adopted in Minsk on 22 January 1993 (“the Minsk Convention” – see paragraph 34 below), to which both Russia and Georgia were parties. The request was accompanied by a case file detailing the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant in Russia.

7. In the extradition request, the Russian public prosecution authorities provided official guarantees that the applicant was wanted solely on the charges specified in the criminal case file attached to the request. They gave assurances that he would not be prosecuted for improper reasons – such as his political or religious beliefs or his racial or ethnic origin – or for any other offense not included in the case file (pursuant to Article 66 of the Minsk Convention). Additionally, they pledged that he would not be subjected to ill - treatment and would receive all procedural safeguards ensuring a fair trial. The requesting authority further clarified that the criminal charges against the applicant were not time-barred and that he did not benefit from any form of immunity shielding him from prosecution.

8. Regarding the criminal charges underlying the extradition request, the case materials indicated that the applicant had been wanted since November 2014 under Article 158 § 2 (a) (theft) and Article 210 § 1 (formation of a criminal organisation) of the Russian Criminal Code (“the RCC”). The charges related to the formation and leadership of a criminal gang engaged in property misappropriation. Specifically, the applicant was accused - alongside at least three accomplices – of credit card fraud, identity theft, electronic data breaches in the financial services sector, and other cybercrimes.

9. The case file listed a total of forty-six criminal incidents occurring between July 2013 and October 2014, allegedly resulting in losses amounting to several hundred thousand euros. Furthermore, the case file stated that the applicant had fled Russia shortly after the criminal investigation had been opened in November 2014. Before relocating to Georgia, he had reportedly lived in Montenegro and Türkiye using false identity documents.

10. On 28 March 2019, after obtaining additional information from Russian authorities regarding the criminal proceedings, the CPPO lodged an application in the Tbilisi City Court seeking authorisation for the applicant’s extradition.

11. On 1 May 2019 the Tbilisi City Court granted the CPPO’s application. In its decision, the court – relying on a Georgian translation of the case materials and assurances provided by the Russian authorities – found that the charges against the applicant were serious, well-founded and not barred by statutes of limitation or other procedural obstacles. The court further determined that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the applicant would face improper treatment in Russia.

12. The decision of 1 May 2019 was upheld on appeal and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia on 31 May 2019. The Supreme Court concurred with the lower court’s reasoning, emphasising in response to the applicant’s general concerns about potential ill-treatment if extradited the relevance of the criminal evidence and the assurances provided by the Russian authorities.

13. The applicant then claimed asylum, with the related proceedings temporarily suspending the extradition order. However, on 9 July and 5 September 2019 respectively the Tbilisi City Court and the Tbilisi Court of Appeal (at the final instance) rejected his asylum request, concluding that he had failed to substantiate his claims.

14. On 5 September 2019 the applicant submitted a request to the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, seeking an order to halt his imminent extradition to Russia. The request was registered as an application under Article 3 of the Convention – the applicant’s first such application against Georgia – and was assigned case number 38811/19.

15. On 6 September 2019 the Court dismissed the applicant’s request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Subsequently, on 5 December 2019, it declared application no. 38811/19 manifestly ill-founded.

16. On 27 September 2019 the CPPO sought further assurances from Russian authorities that the applicant would not be subjected to treatment violating Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention upon extradition.

17. On 30 September 2019 the Minister of Justice of Georgia issued a final order authorising the applicant’s extradition to Russia. The order was based, among other considerations, on the fact that the domestic courts had already approved the extradition (see paragraphs 11 and 12 above) and that the Minister’s independent review had found no grounds to conclude that the extradition would violate Georgia’s international obligations.

18. On 4 October 2019, in response to the CPPO’s request of 27 September (see paragraph 16 above), the Russian public prosecution authorities provided additional legal assurances that the applicant’s extradition would not result in a violation of his rights under Articles 2, 3, or 6 of the Convention. These assurances were substantively similar to those initially provided on 13 November 2018 (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above).

19. On 24 October 2019 the Georgian authorities extradited the applicant to the Russian Federation.

20. The CPPO subsequently made inquiries regarding the applicant’s detention conditions in Russia to which the Russian public prosecution authorities and the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation responded on 14 July and 19 August 2021. The reports provided in response, which included the applicant’s full medical records and recent photographs of both the applicant and his cell, provided detailed descriptions of his detention conditions – including cell size, occupancy, hygiene standards, food quality and daily physical activities. The reports also noted that the applicant had made no medical complaints.

2. Post-extradition developments

21. On 21 January and 3 April 2020 the Russian public prosecution authorities submitted requests to the CPPO under Article 44 of the European Convention on Extradition, which applies to both Georgia and the Russian Federation (see paragraph 35 below), and Article 66 of the Minsk Convention (see paragraph 34 below). The requests sought Georgia’s consent to the bringing of new criminal charges against the applicant.

22. Specifically, the two post-extradition requests indicated that Russian law enforcement authorities had recently determined that the applicant might have been implicated in the murder of a female investigator from the Ministry of the Interior. That investigator had uncovered fraudulent activities carried out by the cyber-criminal gang led by the applicant in 2013-2014 (see paragraph 8 above). In that context, the Russian public prosecution authorities informed its Georgian counterpart of their intention to charge the applicant under the following provisions of the RCC:

(i) Article 296 § 2 (death threats against an investigating officer), for allegedly making telephone calls and sending electronic messages containing death threats to the investigator of his first criminal case between 2015 and 2017;

(ii) Article 167 § 2 (destruction of property by arson), for allegedly instructing a third party to set fire to the investigator’s personal car in January 2018 to intimidate her;

(iii) Article 298 § 1 (defamation of an investigating officer), for allegedly spreading defamatory statements about the investigator online; and

(iv) Article 295 (attack on the life of an investigating officer), for allegedly masterminding the investigator’s murder, which occurred on 10 October 2018.

23. The post-extradition requests also sought the CPPO’s consent to the bringing of new criminal charges against the applicant under Article 159 § 6 of the Criminal Code (cyber fraud). Those charges related to at least seventy - two additional instances of fraud, identity theft, data breaches, computer viruses, scams, and other malicious activities carried out using information technology. The applicant was alleged to have committed those offenses between 2015 and 2018 while evading justice abroad, targeting Russian individuals, private entities and governmental agencies.

24. The post-extradition requests included a copy of the criminal case file, comprising 1,351 pages of evidence gathered by Russian investigative authorities regarding the new charges. The requests also contained standard assurances that the extradition was not sought for improper purposes but solely to hold the applicant accountable for serious crimes. Additionally, the authorities reiterated the guarantees that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment (see paragraph 7 above).

25. According to excerpts from the criminal case materials gathered by the Russian authorities regarding the post-extradition charges, extensive investigative measures had been conducted, including over 1,300 interviews and interrogations, 70 forensic examinations (some involving IT specialists), 40 house searches and 30 lie-detection tests. The applicant was alleged to have ordered, while residing in Georgia, the murder of an investigator who had been investigating his previous cybercriminal activities. The order was reportedly placed on the darknet in Russia under the alias “Miguel Morales.” Allegedly, the applicant first contacted a 17-year-old middleman on the darknet, to whom he purportedly transferred two bitcoins as payment for the murder. The middleman then hired a 19-year-old hitman. Neither the middleman nor the hitman had been aware that the target was an investigator from the Russian Ministry of the Interior. By the time the post-extradition requests were submitted, both the middleman and the hitman had already been arrested and convicted for the investigator’s murder. However, as confirmed in their statements to the trial court, they were unaware of the true identity of “Miguel Morales”. Indeed, although communication between the applicant – the alleged instigator – and the middleman was conducted anonymously on the darknet, Russian cybersecurity experts eventually deciphered the exchanges and identified the applicant. There was also circumstantial evidence against him, including: (i) the fact that the investigator had received death threats from him while she was still alive; (ii) the burning of her personal car – allegedly as an act of intimidation – by a close relative of the applicant (see paragraph 22 above); and (iii) the fact that shortly before the investigator’s murder, the applicant’s closest next-of-kin had abruptly left Russia for Georgia.

26. On 11 August 2021 and again on 11 May 2022 after receiving no response to his initial request, the applicant petitioned the CPPO to withhold consent for the Russian authorities’ post-extradition requests. He argued that one of the charges – murder of an investigating officer under Article 295 of the RCC – carried a maximum sentence of either the death penalty or life imprisonment. He maintained that Georgia’s approval of that charge would constitute a breach of its international obligations under the Convention.

27. On 27 May 2022 the CPPO responded, confirming to the applicant receipt of the post-extradition requests from Russia. It stated that it would first issue a legal recommendation before forwarding the requests, in due course, to the Minister of Justice – the competent authority for reviewing such matters – pursuant to section 34(16) of the Law of Georgia on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters (see paragraph 31 below). The CPPO assured the applicant that the relevant human rights standards, including those established by the Convention, as well as the arguments he had made in his petitions of 11 August 2021 and 11 May 2022 (see the preceding paragraph), would be duly considered during the post-extradition proceedings.

28. On 22 September 2022 the applicant requested the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to instruct the Government to withhold consent to the post-extradition requests submitted by the Russian public prosecution authorities. He specifically cited the risk of facing the death penalty if charged under Article 295 of the RCC. The Court initially suspended its examination of the request for interim measures pending the receipt of additional information from the Government. However, after reviewing the submitted information, the Court rejected the applicant’s request on 11 October 2022.

29. According to the information currently available in the case file, the Georgian authorities have not yet responded to the post-extradition requests submitted by the Russian Federation (see also paragraphs 44 and 45 below).

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE

1. Domestic law
   1. Constitution

30. Article 10 of the Constitution of Georgia, enacted on 24 August 1995, prohibits the death penalty:

“1. Human life is protected. The death penalty is prohibited. ...”

2. The Law of 1 December 2016 on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters (“the ICCM Act”)

31. The relevant provisions of the ICCM Act read as follows:

Section 22 – Death Penalty

“Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which the person is sought is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting state.”

Section 29 – Other Circumstances Excluding Extradition

“1. Extradition shall not be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person on the basis of their race, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, political opinions or other similar factors.

2. Extradition shall not be granted if, having regard to the nature of the offence and the interests of the requesting State, it would be clearly inconsistent with fundamental humanitarian standards owing to the individual’s being underage or to his or her health status or personal circumstances.

3. Extradition to the requesting state shall not be granted if there is reasonable belief that the person will be subjected to torture, to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or to punishment involving such treatment.

4. Extradition shall not be granted if the person may be tried or sentenced by a special court or tribunal in the requesting state.

4(1). Extradition shall not be granted if it contradicts the sovereignty, security or essential interests of Georgia.

5. Extradition shall not be granted if prohibited by an international agreement or a bilateral treaty between Georgia and the requesting state.”

Section 34 - Decision on Extradition and Appeal

“1. Upon receiving an extradition request and supporting documents, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia or the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia shall verify whether the submitted documentation complies with the form and procedure established under an international agreement or bilateral treaty to which Georgia is party.

2. If necessary, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia or the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia may request additional information and/or documents from the competent authority of the requesting foreign State.

3. If clear circumstances preventing the extradition of a person to a foreign state [become apparent] before completing the procedures specified in this section, the Minister of Justice of Georgia shall issue an order denying the extradition request.

4. If the extradition request complies with the provisions of an international agreement or bilateral treaty of Georgia, the Minister of Justice of Georgia shall promptly forward the documents submitted by the foreign state to the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia.

5. Upon receiving the extradition materials, the duly authorised prosecutor shall provide the person [whose extradition has been requested] with the relevant documents and inform that person of his or her rights and obligations under the legislation of Georgia.

6. After receiving the extradition materials, the duly authorised prosecutor shall, within a reasonable time, apply to the relevant district (city) court for a decision on the permissibility of extradition and shall notify the person concerned at least ten days in advance.

6(1). At any stage of the extradition proceedings, the parties shall, upon request, exchange the information and materials in their possession that they intend to present before the court.

6(2). The parties shall exchange the information and materials in their possession no later than five days after receiving notification as prescribed in section 6(1). Failure to comply with this obligation shall render the relevant information and materials inadmissible in court.

7. The district (city) court shall, within seven days of receiving the documents specified in subsection 6 of this section, schedule a hearing on the permissibility of extradition.

8. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the court shall issue a decision on the permissibility of extradition.

9. The ... person [concerned] shall be entitled to all the rights guaranteed to a defendant under the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure, taking into account the specific nature of extradition procedures.

10. If additional information from the relevant foreign authority is required to decide on extradition, the court shall submit a request to the Ministry of Justice of Georgia or the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia.

11. A ruling by the district (city) court on the permissibility of extradition may be appealed against by the parties within seven days of its being given by lodging a cassation appeal with the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. The Supreme Court shall schedule the first hearing no later than five days after receiving the appeal.

12. The Ministry of Justice of Georgia shall be notified of the final court decision on the permissibility of extradition within five days.

13. If the court determines that extradition is impermissible, the Minister of Justice of Georgia shall issue an order denying the extradition request.

14. If the court determines that extradition is permissible, the Minister of Justice of Georgia shall issue a final and non-appealable order either granting or denying the extradition request.

15. In taking a decision under subsection 14 of this section, the Minister of Justice of Georgia shall take into consideration the court’s ruling on the permissibility of extradition, compliance with section 29(5) of this Law and Georgia’s international human rights obligations. The Minister may also deny extradition for humanitarian reasons or other relevant considerations.

16. If the requesting foreign state submits an additional extradition request after the person has been handed over to its authorities, the Minister of Justice of Georgia shall decide on the request, taking into account the legal opinion of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia.”

3. Administrative-legal proceedings

32. Pursuant to Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3 § 4 (a) and (f) of the General Administrative Code, as well as Articles 1 and 2 of the related Code of Administrative-Legal Procedure, the State’s jurisdiction over criminal matters and the enforcement of obligations arising from international agreements do not fall within the scope of either of those two Codes. Those Codes are instead intended to regulate administrative-legal proceedings related to the issuance of secondary legislation (such as, for instance, ministerial orders).

33. Articles 23 and 24 of the Code of Administrative-Legal Procedure grant an individual claimant, who has the required legal standing, the right to approach a court. This allows them to challenge a public authority’s failure to act or make a decision and to request a court to order the authority to take action or issue a decision.

2. International law
   1. The Minsk Convention

34. The Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases (signed in Minsk on 22 January 1993 and amended on 28 March 1997), to which both Georgia and the Russian Federation are parties, provides that an extradited person cannot be subject to criminal prosecution or punished for a criminal offence committed prior to extradition and which was not specified in the initial extradition request, unless the extraditing State consents to it (Article 66 § 1).

2. European Convention on Extradition

35. Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 (“the ECE”), to which both Georgia and the Russian Federation are parties, deals with the principle of speciality and provides:

“1. A person who has been extradited shall not be proceeded against, sentenced or detained with a view to the carrying out of a sentence or detention order for any offence committed prior to his surrender other than that for which he was extradited, nor shall he be for any other reason restricted in his personal freedom, except in the following cases:

a. when the Party which surrendered him consents. ... Consent shall be given when the offence for which it is requested is itself subject to extradition in accordance with the provisions of this Convention. ...”

36. The Explanatory Report to the ECE read as follows:

“Paragraph 1 of this article establishes the principle that an extradited person may not be proceeded against or sentenced or detained for an offence other than that which furnished the grounds for his extradition. Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph set out the following exceptions to this principle:

Sub-paragraph (a): If the requested Party consents, extradition may be extended to other offences. ...

The third sentence of this sub-paragraph lays down that, if it follows from the request made and the documents produced by the requesting Party that the offence for which extension of the extradition is requested comes within the field of application of the Convention, the requested Party is obliged to agree to such extension.”

37. Whilst Georgia signed the Fourth Additional Protocol to the ECE on 17 June 2024 – which, among other amendments, modified the scope of the principle of speciality in Article 14 (see the preceding two paragraphs) and also introduced a clear 90-day time limit for considering relevant post - extradition requests revolving around the doctrine of speciality – it has not yet ratified the Protocol.

38. In contrast, the Russian Federation ratified the Fourth Additional Protocol to the ECE on 29 May 2017, and it became binding for the State on 1 September 2017. The Russian Federation has not denounced either the ECE or its Fourth Additional Protocol, even after its membership in the Council of Europe ceased on 16 March 2022.

COMPLAINTS

39. The applicant, relying on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, complained that there was a likelihood of the respondent State consenting to the new charges being brought against him in the Russian Federation, thus exposing him to a real risk of the death penalty or life imprisonment.

THE LAW

40. The applicant complained about the post-extradition proceedings in Georgia, which revolved around the doctrine of speciality, under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention which read as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

1. The Government’s arguments

41. The Government raised four objections to the admissibility of the case. First, they argued that the application was inadmissible owing to the applicant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as he had never attempted to challenge the Minister of Justice’s inaction and/or refusal to issue a formal decision on the post-extradition requests under Articles 23 and 24 of the Code of Administrative-Legal Procedure (see paragraph 33 above).

42. Second, and in the alternative, they contended that the application was incompatible with the six-month time-limit set out in the previous version of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, which was in effect before 1 February 2022. In that regard, they maintained that the applicant should have realised as early as August 2021 that the Ministry of Justice of Georgia had effectively refused to make a decision on the post-extradition requests, as that was when he had first asked the Georgian authorities to withhold their consent (see paragraph 26 above).

43. Third, the Government argued that the application was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention as the applicant could not legitimately claim to be a victim of the alleged Convention violations in the extension-of-extradition proceedings. They contended that no decision had been taken to his detriment by the domestic authorities. They emphasised in that regard the fact that, under section 34(16) of the ICCM Act (see paragraph 31 above), such post-extradition decisions followed a two-step procedural process: first, the CPPO had to issue a legal recommendation on whether the requests to bring extra charges against the extradited person could be granted; only then would the Minister of Justice consider the matter. The Government noted that, as of the date when they made their submissions (25 September 2023), the issue had not even been examined at the first level by the CPPO.

44. Furthermore, the Government had formally undertaken not to decide on post-extradition requests submitted by the Russian Federation as long as legal uncertainties persisted regarding extradition to that State, which was no longer a member of the Council of Europe. They stated that a decision would only be made once a uniform approach on the matter was adopted among Council of Europe member States. The Government provided statistical data in that connection confirming that no individual had been extradited from Georgia to the Russian Federation since its membership in the Council of Europe had ceased on 16 March 2022. They further emphasised their commitment to maintaining that moratorium until a European consensus was reached on the issue.

45. The Government added that, in general, there were no binding time - limits for proceedings arising from requests to add charges after extradition. It was a well-established practice of the CPPO and the Ministry of Justice to remain deliberately inactive and to refrain from issuing a decision if they disagreed with post-extradition requests submitted by requesting States under Article 14 of the ECE and/or Article 66 of the Minsk Convention (see paragraphs 34 and 35 above). Consequently, their prolonged failure to examine the Russian authorities’ requests concerning the applicant indicated their unwillingness to issue a favourable decision, and that passive stance was clearly to the applicant’s benefit.

46. Fourth and lastly, the Government argued that the application was manifestly ill-founded. While maintaining that the application should ordinarily be considered premature or inadmissible owing to the applicant’s lack of victim status – given that the competent authorities had deliberately refrained from examining the Russian public prosecution authorities’ post - extradition requests – the Government nonetheless assured the Court that, should those authorities (the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Minister of Justice) ultimately address the matter, they would have all the necessary legal tools at their disposal to carefully assess the validity of the two risks cited by the applicant in his complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (see paragraph 39 above). The Government also pointed out that the Russian Federation had a constitutional ban on the death penalty. It further noted that the applicant had not lodged an application against Russia while it was still a Contracting State to the Convention regarding the potential application of the death penalty to the new criminal charges. Those facts further confirmed that his complaints were manifestly ill-founded.

2. The applicant’s arguments

47. The applicant disagreed with the Government’s objections but did not provide any arguments to counter the first three of them (see paragraphs 41 - 44 above). Instead, he primarily contended that although the respondent State had thus far been reluctant to consider the Russian public prosecution authorities’ post-extradition requests, it might do so at any moment in the future. In that connection, the applicant complained that the legal procedure for examining such requests – set out in section 34(16) of the ICCM Act (see paragraph 31 above) – did not allow the extradited person to participate in the proceedings. Consequently, he feared that he would be unable to present his arguments before the competent domestic authorities and thereby influence the decision-making process. He also complained that any decision by the Minister of Justice of Georgia to grant the Russian authorities’ post - extradition requests would not be subject to judicial review.

48. Regarding the alleged risks associated with the extension - of - extradition proceedings, the applicant, while acknowledging that the constitutional ban on the death penalty in the Russian Federation remained in force, argued that there was always a risk that the Russian authorities might lift it in future. He also contended that if Georgia consented to the post-extradition charges against him, he faced the likelihood of being sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, which would violate his rights under Article 3 of the Convention.

3. The Court’s assessment

49. The Court must determine whether the applicant currently faces a genuine risk of treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention, either independently or in conjunction with Article 13, as a result of the respondent State’s potentially giving consent to new criminal charges being brought against him in the Russian Federation.

50. At the outset, the Court notes that the Government’s first objection to the admissibility of the application – based on the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Articles 23 and 24 of the Code of Administrative - Legal Procedure (see paragraph 41 above) – is clearly unfounded. Extradition matters, by definition, fall within the domain of the enforcement of obligations arising from international agreements and do not come under the jurisdiction of administrative courts (see the exception to administrative court jurisdiction described in paragraph 32 above). The same applies to the Government’s second objection, which is based on the applicant’s alleged failure to comply with the six-month time-limit (see paragraph 42 above). Indeed, it remains wholly unclear why August 2021 - namely the date when the applicant first requested the Georgian authorities not to consent to the new criminal charges being brought in Russia (see paragraph 26 above) – should be considered as the triggering event for the relevant time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

51. Having regard to the specific circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that a question may arise as to whether the facts complained of fall within the jurisdiction of the respondent State, as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. This is particularly relevant given that the applicant has already been extradited and is no longer present on the territory of Georgia (see paragraph 19 above, and compare Ansari v. Portugal (dec.), no. 4262/17, §§ 56-57, 11 April 2023). However, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the applicant did fall within the jurisdiction of the respondent State, the Court considers that the application is, in any event, inadmissible for the following reasons.

52. The Court places particular emphasis on the fact that, as confirmed by the Government’s submissions and further reinforced by their formal undertaking before the Court (see paragraphs 44 and 45 above), the competent domestic authorities do not yet intend to initiate an examination of the Russian authorities’ post-extradition requests. The Court notes that the relevant domestic procedure consists of two stages: (i) a legal opinion issued by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and (ii) a final decision made by the Minister of Justice (see section 34(16) of the ICCM Act cited in paragraph 31 above). In the present case, as of the date of the most recent information available to the Court, the first stage had yet to be completed. Indeed, as the Government has stated, the competent domestic authorities are deliberately refraining from examining the matter (see paragraph 44 above). In this context, drawing parallels with its case law – in which it is established that, in the absence of a final and enforceable domestic order granting extradition or expulsion, applicants cannot validly claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 3 (see Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, §§ 354-55, ECHR 2005-III, and Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 43-47, Series A no. 241-B) – the Court finds that the applicant, in the present case, likewise cannot assert that there is a real risk to his rights under Article 3 of the Convention.

53. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 17 July 2025.

Simeon Petrovski Faris Vehabović
Deputy Registrar Acting President