Extradition in France: The Chambre de l’Instruction and How to Block a Surrender Request

Extradition from France follows two distinct stages for non-EU requests. The first is judicial: the Chambre de l’instruction of the competent Court of Appeal (generally in Paris for international cases) examines the extradition request and delivers a reasoned opinion — either favourable or unfavourable — on whether the legal conditions for surrender are met. A favourable opinion does not compel extradition; it is a necessary but not sufficient condition. An unfavourable opinion, by contrast, is binding: if the Chambre de l’instruction refuses the request, the matter ends there and extradition is legally impossible.

The second stage is executive: where the Chambre’s opinion is favourable, the Prime Minister (Premier ministre) issues a decree ordering or refusing extradition. The Prime Minister retains full political discretion and may refuse on grounds of public policy, diplomatic interest, or proportionality — even where the Chambre has approved the request. The Prime Minister’s decree is subject to review by the Conseil d’État (Council of State), France’s highest administrative court.

The dual criminality requirement applies under the 1927 Law: the conduct must be a criminal offence under both French law and the law of the requesting state, and must carry a minimum sentence of at least two years imprisonment in France. The INTERPOL Red Notice role in France is limited: a Notice can support a request for provisional arrest (garde à vue) pending the formal extradition request, but French courts require a complete dossier before the Chambre de l’instruction can hear the case.

France has a strong constitutional tradition of political asylum and has one of the most robust applications of the political-offence exception in European extradition law. Under the 1927 Law, extradition is refused where the offence for which surrender is sought is of a political character — including where criminal charges appear designed to persecute the individual for political activity, ethnic identity, religion, or nationality.

The interaction between refugee status and extradition proceedings is particularly significant in France. Where an individual holds refugee status granted by OFPRA (the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons), extradition is in principle excluded under Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (non-refoulement), which France applies strictly. Even a pending asylum application may stay extradition proceedings pending OFPRA’s decision. This creates a strategic consideration: in cases where genuine political motivation underlies a foreign prosecution, the asylum track and the extradition challenge track can and should be run in parallel.

French courts have also refused extradition on ECHR grounds, particularly under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) where the requesting state’s judicial system does not meet the minimum standards required by the Convention, and under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) where prison conditions in the requesting state fall below acceptable thresholds.

France, Belgium, and Switzerland share a continental European approach that consistently refuses to extradite their own nationals to non-EU states. France’s political-offence tradition is particularly strong and has been used to block extradition requests from Russia, Turkey, and several other states. Compare with the UK position, which allows extradition of nationals to the US and applies the political-offence bar more narrowly.

A notable pattern in French-connected extradition and INTERPOL cases involves individuals who were convicted abroad under a proceeding later found to be flawed or politically motivated, and who then sought both an acquittal in absentia and a CCF challenge to the associated Red Notice. Where French courts — whether as the forum for the case or through international legal assistance — have recognised the defective nature of the foreign conviction, this significantly strengthens the CCF submission.

Our team has handled matters involving this pattern, including a case where a client obtained deletion of a Red Notice and pursued compensation after an acquittal in France. See: Red Notice Deletion and Compensation After Acquittal in France — a case illustrating how French legal proceedings and INTERPOL’s CCF process interact and reinforce each other.

Our legal team advises individuals facing extradition proceedings in France on both the judicial stage (Chambre de l’instruction) and the executive stage (Prime Minister’s decision). Our focus at the Chambre stage is on: dual criminality analysis (ensuring the French court applies the correct standard to the conduct alleged); the political-offence bar; ECHR compliance; and, where relevant, the interaction with pending asylum proceedings.

We also file CCF challenges in parallel with French proceedings where a Red Notice is active. A suspended or deleted Notice reduces the risk of travel restriction and further detention while the extradition matter is pending in the French courts.

Facing extradition proceedings in France or a French Red Notice situation? Contact our team for a confidential assessment.