On September 6, 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled [3] that member states are not required to grant every European Union (EU) citizen who has moved within their territory the same protection against extradition that they offer their own nationals.  According to the press release [4], Aleksei Petruhhin, an Estonian citizen, was arrested in Latvia and taken into provisional custody. Shortly thereafter, the Latvian authorities received an extradition request from Russia, stating that criminal proceedings had been initiated against Petruhhin. The Court noted that in moving from Estonia to Latvia, Petruhhin had “made use, in his capacity as a Union citizen, of his right to move freely within the European Union, so that his situation falls within the scope of application of the Treaties and, therefore, of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality.” Noting that “the national rules on extradition at issue give rise to a difference in treatment” depending on citizenship, the Court stressed they can “be justified only where [they are] based on objective considerations and [are] proportionate to a legitimate objective of the national law.” The Court found that “[t]he objective of preventing the risk of impunity for persons who have committed an offence must be considered a legitimate objective in EU law,” and stated that “[e]xtradition thus allows offences committed in the territory of a State by persons who have fled that territory not to remain unpunished.” In order to protect Union citizens from loss of their freedom of movement, the Court found it “necessary . . . to implement all the cooperation and mutual assistance mechanisms provided for in the criminal field under EU law,” stressing that “the exchange of information with the Member State of which the person concerned is a national must be given priority in order to afford the authorities of that Member State, in so far as they may, pursuant to their national law, prosecute that person for offences committed outside their territory, the opportunity to issue a European arrest warrant for the purposes of prosecution.” The Court further ruled that a member state must take into consideration “real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of individuals in the non-member State” requesting extradition, as the Charter does not permit extradition in these circumstances.