On 19 June 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment in the case C-219/25 (Kamekris), concerning the applicability of the principle of mutual recognition with regards to a decision of another Member State not to extradite a Union citizen to a third country where they found a real risk of exposure to inhumane or degrading treatment or a denial of justice. On the question the Court concluded:
Articles 67(3) and 82(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that:
a Member State shall not be obliged to refuse to extradite to a third country a national of another Member State where the authorities of a third Member State have previously refused to execute an extradition request from that third country for the execution of the same sentence imposed on that national of another Member State on account of the existence of a serious risk of infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19, (2) and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Background information on the preliminary ruling
The request was referred to the CJEU by the French Court of Appeal in Montpellier as the French authorities had apprehended a Greek and Georgian national on the basis of Red Notice issued by Georgia. The individual was previously in custody in Belgium on the basis of the same Red Notice, but was released under judicial control pending a decision by the Belgian courts on an extradition request issued against him by Georgian authorities. Belgian authorities ultimately denied the Georgian request, considering that there were serious grounds to believe that his extradition would expose him to a real risk of a denial of justice or inhumane or degrading treatment. This led the French court to ask the CJEU whether the principle of mutual recognition enshrined in Article 67(3) and Article 82(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is required to refuse to extradite to a third country a national of another Member State where the authorities of a third Member State have previously refused to execute an extradition request, on account of the existence of a serious risk of infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(2) and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter.
In its judgment, the Court first reiterated that a Member State which does not extradite its own nationals to third States, as France does, is required to examine whether its decision to extradite a national of another Member State could infringe his or her fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter. Furthermore, neither Article 67(3) nor Article 82(1) TFEU form an obligation of mutual recognition relating to decisions refusing an extradition request from a third country adopted by the Member States. These provisions merely reiterate that judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the European Union is based on the principle of mutual recognition. That being said, the principle of mutual trust requires each Member State to assume that all other Member States are complying with EU Law and fundamental rights guaranteed by EU Law. Therefore, a Member State should take due account of an earlier decision of another Member State refusing extradition in the context of its own independent examination.