Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania) v Michail Michailov

Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania) v Michail Michailov

On the current evidence, including updated information from the Lithuanian authorities and medical experts, there are no substantial grounds for believing the respondent would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if extradited; Lithuanian prisons have adapted facilities and procedures to address his needs, and the presumption of Article 3 compliance is not rebutted.

Parties
Appellant: Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania); Respondent: Michail Michailov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Discharge Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; discharge order quashed
Legal Topics
Extradition, Article 3 ECHR, Prison Conditions, Disability Rights, Healthcare in Detention
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Extradition Law Extradition Article 3 ECHR Prison Conditions Disability Rights Healthcare in Detention

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania)

Appellant

Michail Michailov

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Discharge Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition of the respondent to Lithuania would breach Article 3 ECHR due to his mental and physical health conditions and the adequacy of Lithuanian prison facilities and care

Ratio Decidendi

On the current evidence, including updated information from the Lithuanian authorities and medical experts, there are no substantial grounds for believing the respondent would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if extradited; Lithuanian prisons have adapted facilities and procedures to address his needs, and the presumption of Article 3 compliance is not rebutted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; discharge order quashed

Orders

  • Case remitted to the District Judge to proceed as required if Article 3 had been decided differently
  • Directions to consider provision of updated medical evidence to Lithuanian authorities