Extradition and Dual Citizenship: When Nationality Matters

Which state decides, and who counts as its national?

Separate three roles. The requesting state seeks prosecution or enforcement of a sentence. The requested state receives and decides the extradition request. A state of nationality recognises the person as its citizen. If someone holds passports from A and B but is arrested in C, C does not automatically extend A's or B's non-extradition protection to them. An “own national” rule ordinarily concerns citizens of C, subject to the actual law, treaty and definition of nationality.

Article 6(1)(a) of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 024) gives a party the right to refuse extradition of its nationals; it does not impose a universal duty to refuse. Article 6(1)(b) permits a party to define “nationals” by declaration. Under Article 6(1)(c), nationality is generally assessed at the time of the extradition decision; if the person is first recognised as a national between that decision and the planned surrender, the requested state may still rely on the right to refuse. Article 6(2) provides for a refused case to be sent to the requested state's competent authorities for possible proceedings if the requesting state asks. It does not guarantee prosecution or conviction.

Check the current treaty, declarations, reservations and protocols. Domestic constitutional or statutory rules may change the result.

Use this nationality-to-legal-test matrix before making an objection

Use this matrix as a checklist, not as an automatic prediction. The authority and proof rules depend on the requested state's procedure.

The formal burden and deadline vary; counsel should identify who must prove nationality and which authority decides.

National examples show why one passport rule cannot be generalised

Article 16(2) of Germany's Basic Law (Grundgesetz) says that no German may be extradited abroad. It permits statutory exceptions for surrender to another EU Member State or an international court, provided rule-of-law principles are respected. A German citizen who also holds a US passport therefore has a different nationality argument in Germany from a person who holds two foreign passports but is not German. The German rule cannot be transferred to another requested state.

Article 55 of the Polish Constitution prohibits extradition of Polish citizens subject to stated exceptions. Paragraph 2 requires a basis in a ratified treaty or legislation implementing an international-organisation instrument and conditions concerning where the act occurred and its criminality under Polish law at both relevant times. Paragraph 3 covers specified international judicial bodies and serious international crimes. Paragraph 4 separately prohibits extradition for a political offence committed without violence and where extradition would violate human and civil rights or freedoms. Paragraph 5 assigns the admissibility decision to a court. Poland must also be assessed under its applicable EU and treaty framework; it is inaccurate to call the rule an unqualified ban in every situation.

Home Office guidance for England, Wales and Northern Ireland says that the UK will extradite its own nationals as a matter of policy where no legal bar applies. This is a jurisdiction-specific policy statement, not a universal rule and not a substitute for checking the applicable statute and treaty.

France's declaration under Article 6 of the Convention refers to French nationality at the time of the alleged offence, whereas the Convention's general rule refers to the time of the extradition decision, with a further rule for nationality recognised before surrender. That is why the applicable declaration must be read rather than relying on the Convention's general wording alone.

Does citizenship of the requesting state cancel protection in the requested state?

Not automatically. If C recognises the person as its national and its law protects its nationals from extradition, A's simultaneous recognition of that person as an A national does not by itself erase C's rule. The exact domestic definition, exceptions and treaty terms must be checked. Conversely, if the person is only a national of A and B, neither passport necessarily creates an own-national bar in C.

Consular assistance may help obtain records or contact family, but it is not a court-enforceable bar. A passport is evidence, not always conclusive proof of when nationality began, continued or ended; registry extracts may be needed.

EU citizen facing a third-country prosecution request: what Petruhhin requires

In Petruhhin (C-182/15, 6 September 2016), the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) considered a third-country request for an EU citizen who had exercised free movement and was in a Member State protecting its own nationals. Under Articles 18 and 21 TFEU, the requested state must notify the nationality state and give it an opportunity to request surrender under the EAW, if it has jurisdiction over the same conduct.

Pisciotti (C-191/16, 10 April 2018) confirmed that this consultation principle can apply in the context of the EU–US extradition agreement. It did not hold that an EU passport automatically prevents extradition to the United States. In Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (BY) (C-398/19, 17 December 2020), the Court confirmed that the analysis can apply even where EU citizenship was acquired after the person moved to the requested state and the person also holds the requesting third state's nationality.

Under BY, the nationality state must receive the facts and law sent by the requesting state, relevant changes, and reasonable time to consider an EAW. EU law does not require the entire investigation file or force the requested state to prosecute. If no EAW is issued within a reasonable time set in light of all circumstances—including custody and complexity—extradition may continue. EU law sets no single number of days.

Check proof of EU nationality, who received notice, what information was sent, when the reasonable period began and whether an EAW would cover the same acts.

A request to enforce a sentence is different from a request to prosecute

In Raugevicius (C-247/17, 13 November 2018), a Lithuanian national resident in Finland faced extradition to Russia to serve a sentence. Where the requested state protects its own nationals from extradition for sentence enforcement and allows foreign sentences to be served locally, Articles 18 and 21 TFEU require equivalent treatment for an EU citizen who is a national of another Member State and permanently resides there, subject to the conditions of that national system. This is not a general right to serve every foreign sentence locally.

The later Grand Chamber judgment Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München (C-237/21, 22 December 2022) clarifies the limits. If local enforcement is legally available only with the requesting state's consent, the requested state must actively seek that consent using the available criminal-cooperation mechanisms. If consent is not obtained, EU law does not itself prevent extradition under an applicable international treaty, provided surrender does not breach the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The practical issue is whether a lawful, workable alternative has been explored—not merely whether the person has family ties or a second EU passport.

Provide the enforceable judgment, residence evidence and proof of any required consent. The authority that recognises or enforces a sentence may differ from the extradition court. Neither judgment creates a universal form or appeal deadline.

What if another EU state has already refused extradition?

In Kamekris (C-219/25 PPU, 19 June 2025), the CJEU held that EU law does not automatically require one Member State to refuse a third-country request to enforce the same sentence just because another Member State previously refused it on serious fundamental-rights grounds. The new decision-maker must take account of the earlier refusal's reasons, but there is no automatic mutual recognition of that decision. A prior refusal is relevant evidence, not portable immunity.

Submit the earlier order, a certified translation and supporting risk evidence; address changed circumstances or assurances. A current individual risk assessment under Article 19(2) of the EU Charter is separate from the nationality objection.

If the request is an EAW, use the surrender rules—not third-country extradition rules

The EAW is a judicial surrender mechanism between EU Member States. Under Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, Article 4(6) provides an optional non-execution ground for a warrant to enforce a custodial sentence where the person is staying in, resident in or a national of the executing state and that state undertakes to enforce the sentence under its law. Article 5(3) permits a return-to-serve condition in specified prosecution cases. Both depend on national implementation and the competent judicial authority's assessment.

In C.J. (C-305/22, 4 September 2025), the CJEU held that the executing judicial authority cannot refuse to execute an EAW and take over enforcement of the sentence without the issuing state’s consent. Without consent, the issuing state may maintain the EAW and enforce the sentence itself. For Article 4(6), nationality or residence alone is insufficient: the executing state must have a lawful, workable route to enforce the sentence and satisfy the applicable sentence-transfer conditions.

Article 4(6) is not a free-standing immunity for every EU passport holder: the undertaking to enforce the sentence matters. If the document is an EAW, use the dedicated European arrest warrant guide. If it is a request from a non-EU state, do not import EAW grounds without a separate legal basis.

Documents to collect and where to raise the objection

• Nationality: all current and former passports and identity cards, birth and parentage records, naturalisation decisions, citizenship certificates, registry extracts, and notices of loss or restoration.
• Dates: the legal acquisition/effective date of each citizenship, alleged conduct, arrest, request, each decision and any planned surrender. Distinguish acquisition from later confirmation or passport issuance.
• Residence: registration, permits, entry records, employment, tax, household and family-link evidence where free movement or sentence-enforcement equality is relied on.
• Request: arrest document, requesting state, charges or final sentence, the treaty or statute invoked, and whether the process is extradition, an EAW or a separate immigration measure.
• Earlier steps: prior refusal orders, notifications to the nationality state, any EAW response, official correspondence and evidence of consent for sentence enforcement.

Preserve originals and use certified translations where required. If detained, ask local counsel immediately about custody, evidence, appeal and surrender deadlines; there is no universal dual-nationality deadline.

There is no international “dual-citizenship extradition appeal.” Admissibility, executive surrender, detention review and constitutional complaints may have different forums, deadlines and effects. For general extradition litigation, see the separate cross-border extradition guide; this page focuses on the nationality facts that change the legal test.

Six assumptions that can undermine a nationality argument

1. “Two passports mean no extradition.” The requested state's law and the person's status under it matter, not the number of passports.
2. “Any EU passport blocks extradition.” Petruhhin requires a fact-specific consultation process; it is not blanket immunity.
3. “A passport issued before the hearing settles the date.” The legally effective acquisition date, treaty declaration and procedural stage may differ from the document date.
4. “Another EU state refused, so this state must refuse too.” Kamekris rejects automatic recognition, though the earlier reasoning must be considered.
5. “I can serve the sentence where my family lives.” A legal mechanism, permanent residence and sometimes the requesting state's consent are essential.
6. “Consular help, appeal and domestic prosecution are the same.” They involve different authorities, legal bases and possible results.

If a request involves more than one citizenship, an initial review should identify the requested state, the legal acquisition dates, the governing instrument and whether the request concerns prosecution or sentence enforcement. You can send relevant documents through the confidential enquiry form for an initial assessment of the questions that require advice from counsel in the requested state.