CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 2 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 19 June 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34925/21 O.V.B. against Ukraine lodged on 1 July 2021 communicated on 2 June 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In June 2015 the applicant, a Russian national, moved to Ukraine. On 3   November 2020, upon a request from the Russian authorities, she was arrested and her extradition to Russia on charges of fraud was ordered by the General Prosecutor’s Office. On 3 June 2021 the Dnipro Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the extradition order. The applicant’s asylum applications (in which she claimed that she risked ill-treatment in a Russian prison because of her husband’s conflict with organised crime elements), were not accepted due to the migration authorities’ failure to visit her in prison (compare S.A. v.   Ukraine , no.   7445/21, §§ 18-29, 24 February 2022 [Committee]). On 19 May 2021 a first-instance court declared the Migration Service’s inaction in that respect unlawful. On 23 June 2021 the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicated to the Government of Ukraine that the applicant should not be extradited until one week after completion of the domestic proceedings related to the applicant’s asylum request.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Would the applicant face a risk of   being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if the extradition order was enforced? In particular, did the domestic authorities examine the applicant’s claims in that respect in a manner compliant with the requirements of that provision (compare, for example and mutatis mutandis , S.A. v. Ukraine , no.   7445/21, §§   18-29, 24 February 2022 [Committee], with further references)?   The Government are invited to provide information on the current legal framework and practical arrangements (if any) existing for extradition from Ukraine to the Russian Federation.