Extradition from Ukraine: How the Procedure Works and What an Extradition Lawyer Does

Which Ukrainian institution decides whether someone is surrendered?

Chapter 44 (Articles 573–594) of Ukraine's Criminal Procedure Code (Кримінальний процесуальний кодекс України, or CPC) establishes the procedure. Article 574 divides responsibility according to the stage of the foreign criminal case, not the individual's nationality or the Ukrainian city where they were arrested. The Office of the Prosecutor General (Офіс Генерального прокурора) acts for suspects and accused persons at the pre-trial investigation stage. The Ministry of Justice (Міністерство юстиції України) acts for defendants on trial and persons whose sentences are to be enforced. The head of the relevant central authority or an authorised official makes the surrender or refusal decision under Article 590.

The regional prosecutor's office may carry out the extradition check at the central authority's direction; it is not thereby the final decision-maker. The investigating judge (слідчий суддя) of a local court is responsible for the judicial steps assigned to that judge by the CPC. An ordinary surrender decision is not an automatic consequence of an arrest warrant or an INTERPOL alert. Local court jurisdiction is tied to custody or, in the particular case of a person not detained, to the central authority's location under Article 591.

Identify the precise foreign procedural stage before addressing the wrong authority. Obtain the document stating whether the request seeks prosecution, trial or execution of a final sentence, the Ukrainian file reference, and the name of the authority currently responsible. A family member should not assume that every case belongs to the Prosecutor General merely because a prosecutor appears in court.

Which law or treaty governs the request?

Ukraine is not an EU Member State. The EU European Arrest Warrant system is therefore not the procedure for surrender from Ukraine, even when the requesting state is Poland, Germany or another EU country. Nor should transfer under a deportation or immigration-removal procedure be casually described as extradition: these are distinct legal acts with different legal protections.

Ukraine's reservations and declarations to the 1957 Convention matter. The Council of Europe Treaty Office records, among other things, a Ukrainian health-related reservation and a requirement linked to offences punishable by at least one year of imprisonment. In April 2022 Ukraine also notified the Council of Europe about its inability to guarantee full performance of specified treaty obligations during Russia's aggression and martial law. That notification is not a blanket rule that all extradition has ended; determine the treaty, current communications and actual possibilities case by case.

A further Ukraine-specific treaty check is essential for requests relying on the 1993 Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance. Law No. 2783-IX of 1 December 2022 suspended that Convention and its Protocol in relations with Russia and Belarus; the instruments ceased to operate for Ukraine generally on 29 December 2023. In its decision of 6 December 2023 (case 757/12448/22-k), the Supreme Court upheld cancellation of a Russian-request extradition decision because the actual request had been made under the suspended Minsk Convention. The prosecution's reference to the 1957 European Convention did not retroactively change that request's stated basis. This is a reason to obtain and inspect the original request and the treaty invoked, not a universal promise that every request from either state must fail.

What happens when police find a person wanted abroad?

Article 582 governs initial detention connected to a foreign offence. The arresting authorities identify the person and bring the matter to the relevant prosecutor and central authority. Under Article 582(6), a person must be immediately released if not brought before an investigating judge for the temporary- or extradition-arrest application within 60 hours of detention, or if circumstances excluding extradition are established. This 60-hour requirement is different from the judge's outer 72-hour period to decide a provisional-arrest application under Article 583; the deadlines must not be collapsed into one.

If the formal foreign extradition request has not arrived, the prosecutor can ask the investigating judge with jurisdiction over the place of detention for temporary arrest (тимчасовий арешт). Article 583 normally caps it at 40 days, unless the applicable treaty specifies another period. Failure to receive the request by the relevant maximum requires release from this custody. But release on that basis does not erase the case: Article 583(8) permits a later extradition-arrest application after the formal request arrives.

When a formal request has arrived, the prosecutor, acting on a direction or application from the central authority, may ask the investigating judge where the person is held to impose extradition arrest (екстрадиційний арешт) under Article 584. These are two different custody decisions with different starting points. At the hearing, the lawyer should check the identity and nationality documents, receipt of the request, the applicable treaty, translation, whether the requested person understands what is said, and whether the court is competent.

How long can the person be detained, and is release possible?

Article 584(10) limits extradition arrest to the time needed for decision and actual surrender, with an outer ceiling of 12 months. This is not a prediction that someone will spend twelve months in custody. Under Article 584(11), the investigating judge checks the continuing reasons for detention at the prosecutor's request at least once every two months. Under Article 584(12), the judge may examine the detainee's or defence lawyer's release complaint no more than once a month. The defence should record these hearings and the precise date on which the relevant detention began.

Article 585 expressly allows a non-custodial preventive measure if circumstances can prevent absconding and secure potential surrender. That is not an automatic right to bail. A lawyer can present verified residence, family responsibilities, medical care, employment and compliance history to the investigating judge; the judge assesses the statutory requirements in the individual file. Evidence concerning a person's serious health condition may also affect detention arrangements and the safety of any transfer.

Judicial scrutiny of custody is not the same proceeding as the later challenge to the central authority's final extradition decision. In Baz v. Ukraine (application 40962/13, judgment of 5 November 2020), the European Court of Human Rights examined the lawfulness of detention during extradition-related proceedings. The Court found an Article 5 § 1 breach for detention from 15 to 30 August 2013, after the prosecution abroad became time-barred and extradition had become impossible. It also held that a pending subsidiary-protection application did not by itself invalidate the earlier detention; neither ruling supplies an automatic release order in a different case. Domestic investigating judges must apply the current CPC and the applicable human-rights obligations to the established facts.

The appeal route for a custody ruling is not identical to Article 591 review of the central authority's surrender decision. In particular, the Supreme Court's decision of 31 August 2023 (case 947/23713/22, recorded in its 2018–2025 official appeal-practice review) holds that a judge's refusal to impose house arrest for extradition is not separately appealable under the ordinary Article 309 list. Appeals are expressly provided for certain temporary-arrest and extradition-arrest rulings under Articles 583–584 and for Article 591 rulings; they do not attach to every interlocutory order. Before filing, counsel must identify the precise type of order and the CPC provision that permits its appeal.

What are the steps after the foreign request arrives?

The extradition examination under Article 587 is an administrative review of circumstances that may obstruct transfer, not a Ukrainian criminal trial on the foreign charge. The competent central authority may conduct it itself or entrust it to the relevant regional prosecutor's office. The 60-day statutory period can be extended; therefore families should ask for the actual examination status rather than calculating an imaginary fixed release date.

A foreign request may need a warrant or enforceable judgment, factual description of the alleged conduct, legal provisions defining the offence and penalty, identity information, and translations prescribed by the treaty. Article 12 of the 1957 Convention is particularly relevant to ordinary treaty requests; the applicable protocol and any in-absentia judgment can require more. An INTERPOL notice may help locate a wanted person, but it is not itself the final Ukrainian extradition decision.

Can Ukrainian citizens be extradited? What about other citizenships?

Article 25 of Ukraine's Constitution says Ukrainian citizens cannot be surrendered to another state. Article 589(1)(1) of the CPC expressly makes Ukrainian citizenship at the time of the extradition decision a refusal basis. A person who also has a foreign passport should therefore disclose and document Ukrainian citizenship rather than assume that a second nationality changes the constitutional rule. The correct legal status must be evidenced, not guessed from birthplace or language.

For foreign nationals and stateless people, the court and central authority still check the Code and binding treaty. Article 573's threshold concerns offences punishable under Ukrainian law by imprisonment with a maximum of at least one year, or enforcement of a sentence with at least four months remaining. The central authority must also consider the legal restrictions under Article 589 and Ukraine's international obligations. A refusal to extradite a Ukrainian citizen does not necessarily mean immunity from prosecution in Ukraine; Article 589(3) provides routes to consider domestic investigation following a foreign request.

What if the person agrees to simplified extradition?

Article 588 establishes a separate, consent-based procedure. Consent must be written and approved by an investigating judge who verifies that the person understands the consequences. Consent to surrender and waiver of the speciality rule are distinct choices. Speciality ordinarily limits prosecution in the requesting state for earlier unrelated offences after transfer, subject to treaty exceptions; a waiver changes that protection and should never be presumed from mere consent.

Before the judge approves the statement, the person may withdraw consent or a proposed speciality waiver. After judicial approval, the central authority can decide without a full ordinary extradition examination and in some circumstances before receiving the usual formal extradition request. Under Article 588(8), the central authority has five working days after receiving the judge's approval and the required foreign information to decide whether simplified extradition applies. This current statutory wording should not be confused with an older three-day summary in guidance documents. Article 588 also provides a distinct handover timetable: ordinarily ten working days from communication of the simplified decision, with a possible extension up to thirty days. It excludes the Article 592 postponement mechanism.

Because the simplified decision is final and not subject to the ordinary Article 591 judicial challenge, a lawyer should advise before consent is approved, not merely after the central authority acts. A person who declines consent remains in the ordinary extradition procedure; refusing consent is not an admission of the foreign accusation.

What if Ukraine has its own case against the person, or the person is seriously ill?

Article 592 allows the central authority to postpone actual handover after deciding on extradition when the person is being prosecuted or serving a sentence for another crime in Ukraine, or where serious illness makes transport harmful. Postponement is not the same as refusing extradition and does not itself terminate the foreign request. It also differs from the temporary surrender arrangements recognised in Chapter 44. The defence should provide medical records or the Ukrainian case papers that explain why the transfer date cannot lawfully proceed as planned.

For an ordinary handover, Article 593 sets the transfer period by reference to an agreed surrender date: fifteen days, extendable by the central authority to thirty days in the statutory circumstances. Article 593 requires release from custody once that extended thirty-day period has elapsed; it does not say that a missed date permanently extinguishes the underlying foreign request. Examine the agreed date, written extensions and the reason for non-transfer.

What can an extradition lawyer do at each point?

During the first hours, counsel should locate the exact detention facility, secure confidential client access and an interpreter if needed, ask for the arrest record, identify the foreign state, and preserve the time of actual apprehension. Under Article 581 the person has procedural rights including information on the accusation and access to defence counsel. Family members can help with documents but cannot replace instructions from the detained person.

At the first custody hearing, counsel can question the legal basis and competence of the application, check citizenship and translations, address medical needs and present a credible non-custodial proposal. During the extradition examination, the lawyer supplies authenticated records to the responsible central authority, tracks extension decisions, and coordinates with counsel in the requesting state to clarify whether a foreign judgment is final and what offences are actually alleged. The foreign defence team handles the merits of the foreign prosecution; a Ukrainian investigating judge does not retry the foreign charges.

Before a surrender decision, counsel should distinguish an ordinary case from proposed simplified consent and discuss speciality separately. After an ordinary decision, Article 590 provides a ten-day opportunity to bring it before the competent investigating judge. Article 591 places that judge where the person is held; when a non-custodial measure applies, it provides a different venue linked to the central authority. The investigating judge's ruling can go to the appeal court, but the statute restricts cassation to a prosecutor in the defined circumstances. The Supreme Court’s Criminal Cassation Court confirmed the narrow prosecutorial cassation route in its 26 June 2023 ruling in case 757/13184/22-k; the official published digest also describes an inadequate assessment of medical transfer risks and an unresolved protection application in that particular case. Detailed refusal grounds, appellate steps and possible interim protection belong in the separate guide to challenging extradition from Ukraine.

What documents should a family member gather?

Hypothetical example: A Georgian citizen is detained in Lviv after a foreign arrest alert. Their family assumes the prosecutor can immediately put them on a plane. In fact, the first urgent questions are whether a formal request has arrived, whether temporary arrest is sought within Article 582 and 583 time limits, which central authority owns the foreign case, and whether documents support an alternative to custody. If a formal request subsequently arrives, Article 584 custody and Article 587 examination follow; the family should track the actual orders rather than rely on one general “40-day extradition deadline.”

Does martial law change the answer in October 2026?

Martial law remains legally relevant. Presidential Decree No. 596/2026 extended it from 2 August 2026 for 90 days. Ukraine's April 2022 Council of Europe declaration cautions that full treaty performance cannot be guaranteed during the aggression. Neither statement removes the need to identify the current central authority, competent investigating judge, binding treaty and applicable CPC provision. Physical handover and logistics may be affected by security conditions; neither an absolute suspension of every extradition nor a guaranteed transfer date follows from martial law alone.

For the general mechanics outside Ukraine see the extradition process from request to decision. Local hearings and custody access vary by location; the Kyiv and Lviv court guides address local arrangements rather than changing the nationwide legal rules. The site's team can coordinate cross-border defence with locally instructed counsel; send a confidential enquiry.