Extradition Lawyer in Moscow: Moscow City Court and the Local Procedure

Who decides the request, and what does the Moscow City Court review?

Article 462 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code places the extradition decision with the Prosecutor General or a deputy. The Moscow City Prosecutor’s Office may be involved in local checks and hearings, but it is not the authority that makes the final Article 462 decision. That distinction matters when identifying the document to challenge: obtain the written decision and check who signed it, when it was served, and whether it states the right to appeal.

Article 463 assigns the challenge to a regional-level court based on the location of the person concerned. Moscow is a federal city, so where the person is located in Moscow, the first-instance court for this special challenge is the Moscow City Court. This is not an ordinary appeal from a district criminal judgment. It is a separate judicial review of the Prosecutor General’s extradition decision. If the person is held elsewhere when the decision is challenged, do not assume that the Moscow City Court remains the correct venue merely because the arrest was associated with a Moscow airport.

The Moscow Prosecutor’s Office says relatives cannot challenge the decision in their own names. The person concerned or defence counsel should file the Article 463 complaint; family members can collect records and coordinate with counsel but cannot replace the applicant.

The local court route: Moscow City Court and the appellate court

Read Article 463 alongside Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 11 of 14 June 2012, as amended on 27 May and 9 December 2025. The statutory route and the Plenum guidance govern the analysis; an individual appellate ruling, if found, must be checked for its exact holding and should not be treated as universally binding precedent.

Which deadlines apply after notice of extradition?

The review is conducted by a single judge in an open hearing with the prosecutor, the person concerned and defence counsel if participating. If the person is in custody, Article 463(2) requires the detention-facility administration to forward a court-addressed complaint immediately and notify the prosecutor; keep proof of submission. The one-month period concerns first-instance review, not the whole case. Under Article 462(6), extradition must not occur while the challenge is pending and until the judicial decision enters into force; confirm the status in writing. A later appeal against the court ruling is a separate stage, generally subject to the 15-day period in Article 389.4(1).

Custody in Moscow is a separate question from the extradition challenge

Article 466 distinguishes two routes. Without a foreign court’s detention order, custody requires a Russian court order on the prosecutor’s application. If the extradition request includes a foreign judicial detention decision, Article 466(2) allows the prosecutor to impose house arrest or custody without prior Russian judicial confirmation of that foreign decision. Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 11, paragraph 21, limits this initial prosecutorial custody to two months from arrest; any extension requires a Russian court order. That two-month ceiling is expressly for custody and should not automatically be applied to house arrest, whose duration and review require separate analysis under the rules governing that measure. The two-month rule is also not a universal limit for every provisional arrest before a complete extradition request arrives: the applicable treaty may set a different, shorter period.

A prosecutor’s custody order may be challenged separately under Article 125; Article 463 concerns the extradition decision. Counsel should inspect the papers and calculate each deadline. A court must consider a less restrictive measure; delay in extradition review alone does not justify extending custody.

Do not assume there is one designated Moscow pre-trial detention facility for every extradition case. The place of custody depends on the actual detention decision and transfers; confirm the person’s current facility with the responsible authority or defence counsel before arranging a visit or sending property.

Does the airport of arrest determine which court hears the case?

Article 463 venue follows the person’s location, not the airport where the arrest occurred. If the arrest happened at Vnukovo or another airport serving Moscow, confirm the person’s actual current place of custody before filing; a transfer can change the correct court.

A Red Notice or diffusion is not the Russian extradition decision. Ask the authority to identify the arrest basis, the foreign request or provisional-arrest request, and any detention order. Without the written Article 462 decision and proof of service, the Article 463 deadline cannot be calculated reliably.

The first 72 hours: a practical action plan, not a statutory deadline

The plan above is practical guidance, not a separate statutory deadline. Article 18(3) of the Code and paragraph 24 of Plenum Resolution No. 11 require the relevant documents to be translated into a language the person understands when their Russian is insufficient; counsel should check the decision and notice, as well as interpretation at the hearing.

What should the family and foreign lawyer prepare?

• Signed Article 462 extradition decision and proof of the date it was received (envelope, receipt or detention-facility record).
• Any Russian detention order or prosecutor’s decision, any court order under Articles 108, 109, 125 or 466, and any foreign judicial detention decision attached to the request.
• The person’s full name, date of birth, citizenship, passport or other ID, case/reference number, current place of custody and any transfer records.
• All notices, arrest records and translations, plus a dated timeline showing when each document was received and by whom.
• Existing defence counsel’s contact details and any authority needed to communicate; the family should support the person or counsel, not assume it can file the Article 463 complaint in its own name.
• Any refugee, temporary-asylum or political-asylum application and its dates/status; medical or family records that counsel considers relevant to a separate custody review. Detailed refusal grounds belong in the Russia country guide.

Hypothetical example: a traveller is detained at Vnukovo, moved to a Moscow facility, then served with an extradition decision. The 10-day period starts on receipt of notice, not airport arrest. Confirm the location and service date, obtain the papers, and file in Moscow City Court if Moscow is the proper venue; reassess if the person is moved.

What this local page does—and does not—decide

The Moscow-specific task is to identify the right court, deadline, file and custody route. Under Article 463(6), the Moscow City Court does not decide guilt; it checks compliance with Russian law and applicable treaties. Country-wide refusal grounds and later remedies are covered in the Russia extradition guide and the guide to challenging or stopping extradition from Russia.

A later application for temporary or political asylum, or for refugee status, does not by itself postpone Article 463 review. Under paragraph 26 of Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 11, the court assesses the circumstances existing when the extradition decision was made; actual transfer must still await resolution of the relevant protection application or, after refusal, completion of the applicable appeal procedure.

Russia is not an EU Member State, so the European Arrest Warrant does not apply. For a particular request, check the current Council of Europe Treaty Office record for the requesting state and any relevant declarations under the 1957 European Convention on Extradition. Russia ceased to be a party to the ECHR on 16 September 2022; do not assume Strasbourg remedies cover later acts. The linked Russia guides address country-wide grounds and remedies.

Our team coordinates cross-border defence with local counsel. To discuss a case and the documents available, use the request page.