V.P., a Ukrainian beneficiary of temporary protection, filed a request on 2 May 2025 to suspend an extradition order to Ukraine. On 1 September 2023, he had received a 5-year imprisonment sentence for the offence of intentional assault resulting in permanent incapacity for work, however, he left his home country before serving his sentence. A request for extradition was granted by the Belgian Minister of Justice on 24 March 2025.

The applicant argued that the extradition constituted a violation of the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD), violation of the law of 15 December 1980 (especially Article 57/30 transposing the TPD), violation of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 of 4 March 2022, and violation of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1836 of 25 June 2024.

The Council of State noted that the violation of provisions of a European directive can only be invoked if these provisions have not been transposed correctly into Belgian law, and if they are directly applicable due to their clear and precise obligations. In this regard, it deemed inadmissible the alleged violation of the TPD as Belgium had transposed it into national legislation and the applicant did not raise the argument that they were transposed incorrectly.

On the other hand, it considered admissible the invocation of a violation of the relevant national law transposing the TPD, and the two implementing decisions of the TPD. However, it assessed prima facie that it does not appear that these provisions preclude the extradition of a beneficiary of temporary protection, noting hereto that the question of the legality of a foreigner's stay in Belgium is unrelated to the condition of legality of an extradition decision and does not prevent a person from being subjected to such a measure.

The Council then assessed the second and third pleas of the applicant, in which he argued that a return to his country or origin would violate Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR due to the treatment of detainees in Ukraine and the risk of being taken to the front of the armed conflict and being captured by Russian belligerents

The council referred to relevant rulings on extradition by the ECtHR. Additionally, it examined the applicant's statements during the hearing and noted that the applicant did not report any systematic violation of fundamental rights suffered by detainees in Ukraine, nor did he provide any concrete evidence that he would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in a Ukrainian prison. The council found that the press articles submitted by the applicant refer to violence and ill treatment in a number of specific penal colonies in Ukraine. However, it observed that based on a letter received from the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice, extradited persons were not detained in the penal colonies which the applicant considered dangerous based on the submitted country information. Additionally, the council noted that the Ukrainian authorities assured Belgium that they were doing everything in their power to fulfil their international obligations, including protecting detainees' rights and safety. They clarified that wartime derogations only applied in occupied territories, not across Ukraine. Furthermore, they informed that despite the war, all authorities responsible for human rights oversight remained functional, detainees (including extradited persons) were being held far from the front, and two renovated prisons for extradited prisoners were considered to be safe.

The council found that the applicant did not present any evidence to call this into question, nor was there any evidence to support the claim that he would be sent to the Russian front.

Considering the above, the council rejected the suspension of the extradition.