If a date has been set for your extradition or removal, the European Court of Human Rights can ask the State to hold it while the case is examined. It does that only on a narrow test, only on the documents put in front of it, only after the national remedy that suspends the surrender has been used, and only if the request arrives in time and through a channel the Court accepts. This page sets out exactly what is required, and what we do when the count is in days.
Tell us the removal date first · conflict check before documents · we work alongside the lawyers already acting in the extradition proceedings.
If removal is within 72 hours, send three lines now — the date, the two States, and the stage reached — through the form below, and use the telephone, WhatsApp or Telegram details on our contact page at the same time. Do not attach the file yet.
At a glance
| Rule 39 in an extradition case | What the Court’s own rules say |
|---|---|
| What it is | An interim measure indicated to the State, usually asking it not to remove the person while the application is examined |
| Test | An imminent risk of irreparable harm to a Convention right — harm not susceptible to reparation, restoration or adequate compensation |
| Usual provisions | Article 2 and Article 3; more exceptionally Articles 6, 8 and 10 |
| Who decides | A duty judge on the papers or, where appropriate, a Section President, a Chamber, the Grand Chamber or the President of the Court. No hearing, and no appeal against the decision |
| How it is sent | The ECHR Rule 39 Site, or by fax or by post. The Court will not deal with requests sent by email |
| When it must arrive | As soon as possible after the final domestic decision. The Court may not be able to deal with a request received less than a working day before the scheduled removal |
| First condition | Domestic remedies capable of suspending removal must be pursued first |
| Not a substitute for | An appeal against the extradition decision itself. The Court does not review the national courts’ ruling; it asks whether removal would expose you to irreparable harm |
| What we need first | The removal date, the sending and receiving States, and the stage reached — before any documents |
Can the European Court stop my extradition?
An interim measure is not a ruling on the extradition. It freezes the position so that the Court can examine the complaint before the situation becomes irreversible. The Court itself describes interim measures as decided “without prejudging any subsequent decisions on the admissibility or merits of the case”. A measure can be indicated until further notice, for the duration of the proceedings, or for a limited period while the Court asks the parties for information.
Three consequences follow, and they are worth stating plainly before anyone files anything:
- A measure is binding on the State. The Court has held that failure to comply undermines the right of individual application under Article 34 — see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], and, for an extradition carried out in spite of an indicated measure, Trabelsi v. Belgium.
- It can be lifted. The measure is tied to the proceedings. If the application is not pursued, or the circumstances change, it ends. The respondent State may ask the Court to reconsider at any time.
- Refusal is not the end of the application, and it is not appealable either. No appeal lies against a decision on a request. If circumstances change, a fresh request can be lodged. Equally, the Court may declare the application inadmissible at the same time as refusing the measure.
How often Rule 39 is actually granted: the 2025 figures
The codified version of Rule 39 applies to an “imminent risk of irreparable harm to a Convention right”. The Court’s own practice direction explains that irreparable harm means harm which, by its nature, could not be repaired, restored or adequately compensated, and that the circumstances must exceed “a high threshold of seriousness”. Measures are indicated only where there is prima facie evidence of that risk, “and not where the applicants would merely endure hardship”. In most cases in which they are granted, the evidence points to a clearly arguable case of a genuine threat to life and limb.
The Court’s published statistics for 2025 give the scale. It took 2,701 decisions on interim measures, up 65% on 2024. It granted the request in 222 cases and dismissed it in 495. The remainder fell outside the scope of Rule 39 altogether. Requests that are clearly outside that scope, premature, incomplete or unsubstantiated are not normally even put before a judge.
That last sentence is the one that costs people their chance. An incomplete request is not a request the Court will chase: its practice direction states that it “will not necessarily contact applicants whose request for interim measures is incomplete”.
Before Strasbourg: which national appeal still suspends the removal
This is the single most common reason an otherwise serious request fails. The Court does not hear appeals against decisions of national courts. Its practice direction is explicit: applicants in expulsion or extradition cases “should pursue domestic remedies which are capable of suspending removal before applying to the Court for interim measures”, and where such a remedy remains open, “the Court will not apply Rule 39 to prevent the removal”.
So the first question in any extradition matter is not what to write to Strasbourg. It is which national route still suspends the surrender, whether it has been used, and what the final domestic decision actually is. Jurisdictions differ considerably on this, and getting it wrong in either direction — filing too early, or exhausting a remedy that never had suspensive effect — is fatal to the request.
Timing: why the day before the flight is usually too late
Requests should normally be sent as soon as possible after the final domestic decision, so that the Court and its Registry have time to examine them. The practice direction warns that the Court “may not be able to deal with requests in expulsion or extradition cases received less than a working day before the scheduled time of removal”, and that list of working days excludes the Registry’s own closing days.
There is a second rule that is less well known and often more useful. Where the final domestic decision is imminent and there is a risk of immediate enforcement, the request should be submitted without waiting for that decision, stating clearly the date on which it will be taken and that the request is conditional on that decision being negative. In practice this is how a credible request is made in a fast-moving surrender case.
The Court also expects applicants not to delay in order to create a greater degree of urgency. Both parties are under a duty to cooperate in the conduct of the proceedings, and the practice direction warns that such delays may adversely affect the applicant’s own rights and interests and the Court’s ability to deal effectively with the request.
For the lawyers already acting: what the request must contain
The Court sets out the content of a Rule 39 request in its practice direction. Beyond the applicant’s identity, address or place of detention, date of birth, nationality, representative’s details and the State against which the request is lodged, a removal, expulsion or extradition case calls for the following.
- The current situation and the nature of the risk. A detailed description, and the nature of the alleged imminent risk of irreparable harm — not a label, but what is said to be likely to happen and why.
- Reasons for leaving, and reasons for fearing return. Both are asked for separately, in respect of the country of origin or destination.
- Arrival and destination. The date and circumstances of arrival in the sending State, and the country of destination.
- The date of the expected removal, expulsion or extradition.
- Supporting documents. Search warrants, arrest warrants, criminal convictions, medical reports, photographs, material showing vulnerability, press articles and country reports.
- The domestic proceedings. Dates and content of judicial decisions and appeals, information on asylum and removal proceedings, and copies of the decisions, petitions and judgments themselves.
- The Convention Articles relied on, and a duly completed authority form where a representative acts. A request for an interim measure requires the applicant’s consent.
Two formal points defeat a surprising number of requests. A mere reference to arguments set out elsewhere, or to the domestic file, is not sufficient — the documents must be attached. And the Court will not deal with requests sent by email: the channels are the ECHR Rule 39 Site, fax or post. Once a request has been closed on that site after a decision, further correspondence goes by fax or post, and messages sent by email to a judge, a Section President or a Registry member are not considered.
Proving the risk: Article 3 in extradition cases
A Rule 39 request in an extradition case stands or falls on the substantive complaint behind it. The underlying principle has been settled since Soering v. the United Kingdom: a Contracting State may engage its own responsibility under Article 3 where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person faces a real risk of prohibited ill-treatment in the receiving State. Chahal v. the United Kingdom (1996) and Saadi v. Italy [GC] (2008) confirm that this protection is absolute and is not balanced against the danger the person is said to present.
Several strands of case law matter in practice, and none of them is a template. Each turns on its own evidence.
- Life sentences and extradition. In Trabelsi v. Belgium (2014) the Court found a violation of Article 3 where the life sentence faced in the receiving State was irreducible. In Sanchez Sanchez v. the United Kingdom [GC] (3 November 2022) the Court adopted an adapted approach for extradition cases, where the person has been neither convicted nor sentenced, and overruled Trabelsi for that non-domestic setting. The applicant must first show a real risk that, if convicted, a sentence of life imprisonment without parole would be imposed; only then does the sending State have to satisfy itself that a sentence-review mechanism exists.
- Diplomatic assurances. Neither decisive nor worthless. In McCallum v. Italy [GC] (3 November 2022) a diplomatic note was treated as carrying a presumption of good faith, appropriate for a requesting State with a long history of respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. How assurances are tested against a particular country, and where they have failed, is set out on our page on extradition after a Red Notice.
- Health and medical risk. Paposhvili v. Belgium sets out the approach where a seriously ill person is to be removed, and what the sending State must verify about treatment actually available in the receiving country.
These are independent analyses of public judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. They are not representations that this firm acted for any party in those proceedings.
What we do when a removal date is set
- Immediate conflict check and scope. On minimal, non-privileged information, before any file is reviewed.
- Suspensive-remedy audit. Which national route still stops the surrender, whether it has been exhausted, and what the final domestic decision is for Convention purposes.
- Risk assessment under Articles 2, 3 and 6. What can actually be evidenced about the receiving State and this person, as opposed to what is asserted.
- Evidence assembly against the Court’s own list. Decisions, warrants, asylum and removal files, medical material, country reports — attached, not referenced.
- Drafting and lodging the Rule 39 request through the Rule 39 Site or, where necessary, by fax, with the authority form and the applicant’s consent.
- Follow-up. Answering Registry correspondence within the deadlines set, and informing the Court immediately of a change in the removal date, a new decision, a change of address or administrative status. Where a measure has been applied, the Court must also be kept informed about any pending domestic proceedings — failing to do that can lead to the case being struck out of its list.
- The substantive application. An interim measure buys time for a case; it is not a case. Where there is a viable complaint, we prepare the Rule 47 application within the four-month limit.
- Co-counsel work. With the extradition lawyers already instructed, and, where an INTERPOL file is involved, alongside the Red Notice work rather than instead of it.
From first contact to a lodged request
- Tell us the date. The scheduled removal date, the State involved, the destination and the stage reached — a few lines, no files.
- Conflict check. We confirm whether we can act at all and on what basis.
- Document review. The domestic decisions, the surrender or expulsion order, notification dates and any asylum file.
- Decision on the route. Whether a suspensive domestic remedy remains, whether a Rule 39 request is open and what it would have to establish.
- Lodging and follow-up where instruction is accepted, and the substantive application behind it.
Urgent extradition assessment
In the message field, put the three things a conflict check needs: the scheduled date of removal or surrender, the sending and receiving States, and the stage reached (extradition order made, appeal pending, final decision taken and on what date). A few lines are enough. Please do not send case files, medical records or asylum documents before we have confirmed that we can act — we will agree a channel for documents first. Contacting us does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and nothing on this page is advice on an individual case.
Related: our general guide to interim measures at the European Court of Human Rights covers Rule 39 beyond removal cases; extradition after a Red Notice deals with the INTERPOL side; and admissibility sets out the conditions any application has to meet.
Sources: Rules of Court and the Practice Direction on requests for interim measures (Rule 39), as revised on 28 March 2024; the Court’s factsheets on interim measures (March 2024) and on extradition and life imprisonment (April 2024); and the Court’s Analysis of Statistics 2025.
Frequently Asked Questions
How quickly does the Court decide a Rule 39 request?
There is no published time limit. Requests are examined individually, as a matter of priority, in a written procedure, and applications in which a measure has been indicated are placed in the Court’s most urgent category. What the Court does say is the other side of it: it may not be able to deal with a request in an expulsion or extradition case received less than a working day before the scheduled removal.
Can a request be sent by email?
No. The Court will not deal with requests sent by email. They go through the ECHR Rule 39 Site, or by fax, or by post. After a decision closes a request on that site, further correspondence is sent by fax or post, and email addressed directly to a judge or to Registry staff is not considered.
My appeal against extradition is still pending. Should I apply to Strasbourg now?
If that appeal suspends the surrender, the Court will not apply Rule 39 while it remains open. If the final decision is imminent and enforcement could follow immediately, the position is different: the practice direction says to submit the request without waiting, stating the date of the forthcoming decision and that the request is conditional on it being negative. Which of the two situations applies is a question about your national procedure, and it has to be answered before anything is filed.
Does an interim measure mean the extradition has been cancelled?
No. It asks the State to hold the removal while the Court examines the case, and it prejudges nothing about admissibility or the merits. It can be granted for a limited period, prolonged, or lifted — including if the application is not pursued.
The request was refused. Is there an appeal?
No appeal lies against a decision on a request for interim measures. If circumstances change, a fresh request may be lodged. And if the person is removed to another Contracting State, a new request can be made against that State.
Can Rule 39 be used to get someone out of detention, or to stop a seizure of assets?
As the Court’s case law currently stands, no. Rule 39 is not applied to obtain the release of a person in prison pending the Court’s decision on the fairness of proceedings, nor to prevent imminent insolvency or the demolition of property. The measure addresses irreparable harm to a Convention right, not commercial or procedural loss.
Do you guarantee that the removal will be stopped?
The decision is the Court’s, and no outcome can be promised. What is within anyone’s control is the part that decides most refusals: identifying which national remedy still suspends the surrender, assembling the evidence against the Court’s own list, lodging in time, and sending it through a channel the Court reads. Those four things are the work.