The Court of Appeals ordered the extradition of a Russian national to the Russian Federation to stand trial for a case of large-scale fraud and breach of trust, overturning a decision by the Paphos District Court, which had rejected the request due to doubts as to whether the Russian arrest warrant was still in effect.
In its unanimous decision, dated August 11, 2026, the Court of Appeals also ordered the arrest and police custody of the defendant until his extradition to the Russian authorities, while dismissing his appeal.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
According to the ruling, the case concerns a major Russian space program, which was funded by the Russian government with 15.15 billion rubles, an amount exceeding €160 million. The defendant, who worked for a Russian space company and is alleged to have played a significant role in decision-making, is accused of ensuring, together with his associates, that a specific company was selected without a proper competitive bidding process.
Through a contract worth 1.32 billion rubles, funds were allegedly transferred to the company, of which approximately 478 million rubles were used for the project, while approximately 840 million rubles, or €7.8 million, were allegedly distributed among members of the group and laundered through financial transactions.
The Russian national was arrested in Cyprus in November 2024 pursuant to a provisional arrest warrant, while in December of the same year, the Minister of Justice and Public Order authorized the initiation of extradition proceedings.
In November 2025, the Paphos District Court rejected the request solely because it did not consider that the existence of a valid arrest warrant had been proven. It noted, in fact, that if a different interpretive approach were adopted on this specific issue, there would be no other obstacle to extradition.
The Attorney General appealed the decision, arguing that the Russian warrant of December 18, 2020, remained in force.
The Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that there was no provision indicating that the warrant had ceased to be valid upon the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. On the contrary, it pointed out that the warrant itself provided that the period of detention would be calculated from the moment the person sought was handed over to the Russian authorities.
He also placed particular emphasis on a “Diffusion” notice, which explicitly stated that there was no time limit on the warrant’s validity. In its view, the details of the notice corresponded to those of the Russian warrant and left no room for doubt that it remained in force.
The Court of Appeals further noted that these details had escaped the attention of the trial court and constituted essential evidence that should have been taken into account.
In his appeal, the Russian national argued, among other things, that the warrant was deficient because it did not include the criminal case number and that no certified copy of it had been produced. The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, ruling that the absence of a case number did not materially affect the validity of the request and that the issue of the certified copy had essentially ceased to be in dispute during the first-instance proceedings.
The respondent also argued that the Russian authorities had withheld material evidence, citing decisions by Russian courts regarding a case involving his alleged accomplices, in which an indictment had been returned to the prosecutor because it was based on expert testimony that was deemed inadmissible.
The Court of Appeals agreed, however, with the trial court that no breach of the requesting country’s duty of candor had been established, nor had a specific and individual risk of a violation of the appellant’s fundamental rightsin the event of his extradition.
“The appeal is granted. The lower court’s decision is set aside,” states the unanimous decision, which orders the extradition of the Russian national to the Russian Federation and his detention until his handover to the Russian authorities.
Source: CNA
