The Coordination Committee of the Refugee Appeals Board discussed asylum applications submitted by Ukrainian nationals on grounds of risk of being sentenced to imprisonment due to refusal to perform military service and serving a sentence in conditions contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. One member informed that he overturned a decision in October 2025, where the Danish Immigration Office issued the applicant a residence permit under Article 7(2) of the Aliens Act, referring to information relating to the general conditions of detention in Ukraine.
The general conditions of execution in Ukraine are set out in detail in two orders of the High Court of 20 June 2025 concerning extradition for the purpose of enforcing a sentence in Ukraine, following individual guarantees obtained from the Ukrainian authorities (Cases 2/2025 and 3/2025). In one case the extradition was allowed as it has been found that, in view of the nature and content of the guarantees provided, in conjunction with the individual situation of the person concerned, and despite the reports on the conditions of detention in Ukraine, there was no real risk of being subjected to conditions contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. In the second case, the Supreme Court refused extradition on the ground that the person belonged to a particularly vulnerable group.
It was noted that between 1 January and 30 October 2025, the Refugee Appeals Board adopted 11 decisions concerning male applicants from Ukraine, who invoked a fear of conscription to military service as a ground for asylum. The Board concluded in those decisions that the general conditions for execution of imprisonment are not, in themselves, such as to constitute an infringement of Article 3 of the ECHR.
However, the Refugee Appeals Board stated in the decision adopted in October 2025 that, on the basis of the information available on the general conditions of detention in Ukraine, it cannot deny the existence of a real risk that the applicant will be exposed to conditions contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR in the context of detention for refusal of military service. The Coordination Committee interpreted this decision as meaning that any person, including an applicant who refused military service, if returned to Ukraine, risks having to serve a sentence of imprisonment in the country, is covered by Article7(2) of the Aliens Act.
On 13 November 2025, the majority of the Coordination Committee affirmed that the two orders of the Supreme Court of 20 June 2025 relating to extradition for criminal proceedings to Ukraine (Cases 2/2025 and 3/2025) cannot be regarded as indicating that the conditions of detention in Ukraine are in themselves of such a nature that anyone who risks a prison sentence upon return to Ukraine would be exposed to a real risk of being subject to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.
The majority stated that an applicant, including a conscientious objector, cannot on that basis alone, made it plausible that there would be a need for international protection in Denmark. In that regard, it referred to statements in the Supreme Court orders according to which, despite the war, the Ukrainian authorities made considerable efforts to ensure adequate detention conditions, continued their efforts to reduce the number of persons deprived of their liberty, that there is an ongoing reform of the prison system, and that an expert committee regarding the prison system has been established, which information is also supported by the Refugee Board's background material.
Thus, the Coordination Committee affirmed that the approach is the same as before, meaning that when deciding whether the applicant has demonstrated a need for international protection in Denmark, in addition to an examination of the asylum grounds, a thorough assessment must be made of the applicant's real risk of being subjected to a prison sentence upon return, the expected duration and scope of serving such a prison sentence, also by taking into account the applicant's individual circumstances. If there are specific and individual circumstances that make it plausible to believe that an applicant will be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR upon return to the country of origin, they will be eligible for protection pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Aliens Act.
A minority within the committee considered that the orders of the Supreme Court of June 2025 in the two cases concerning extradition to Ukraine had to be understood as meaning that the Supreme Court, after reviewing the latest background information on prison conditions in Ukraine, jointly with information in those cases where specific diplomatic guarantees had been obtained regarding imprisonment and serving time in three different prison facilities, which are used specifically for persons extradited from abroad, has assessed whether the guarantees generally or specifically received on prison conditions in Ukraine may involve a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. As such, the minority asserted that personal and individual circumstances of a person would be relevant only for the purpose of determining whether diplomatic guarantees were sufficient to achieve that purpose. The minority considered that the general conditions of detention in Ukraine are of such nature that it cannot be ruled out that an asylum applicant who has reason to believe that, in the absence of relevant diplomatic guarantees, he would be at risk of serving a prison sentence in Ukraine may be exposed to conditions of detention contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.
The Coordination Committee noted that as of 2 November 2025, 13 spontaneous cases concerning male Ukrainian nationals were pending, out of which the fear of a military obligation as a ground for asylum was invoked in 11 cases. It further noted that the findings of the European Court of Human Rights on 13 November 2025 in Kytsko and Others v. Ukraine (No 7937/24) cannot lead to a different assessment as concluded by the majority of the Coordination Committee.