Extradition injustice remains despite European ruling in Radu – Alex Tinsley

12 February 2013 by

ECJCase C-396/11 Radu [2013] ECR I-0000 – Read judgment

The European Court of Justice’s Grand Chamber has ruled that the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not allow refusal to execute a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) on the basis that the person was not heard by the issuing authority.

With reform of the EAW at the centre of the debate concerning the UK’s big 2014 opt-out decision, all eyes were on the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) when it gave judgment in this case widely seen as an opportunity for it to address some key issues in the operation of the EAW system. There is some disappointment at the outcome.

Why the long face?

For several years, charities, politicians and lawyers have been highlighting the serious flaws in the operation of the EAW, a valuable law-enforcement instrument but one which, in practice, gives rise to two big issues.

Human rights

The first relates to human rights. EAWs see defendants shipped off to serve sentences despite glaring flaws in the trial process, or to face prosecution where there are real doubts about trial fairness. Throughout the EU, human rights arguments prove unsuccessful: in France, the grounds for refusing extradition do not include human rights and the Cour de cassation has insisted that they are exhaustive. The UK and many other countries have generalised human rights bars, but they are not very useful in practice.

Try resisting extradition to Lithuania arguing you may be tried unfairly, and the judge will tell you that extradition can be stopped only if you risk a ‘flagrant denial of justice’; it is presumed that Lithuania, as a signatory to the ECHR, can readily be expected to protect you against unfairness unless there are ‘reliable reports’ indicating otherwise (Janovic v Lithuania [2012] EWHC 710 Admin at [25]).

Proportionality

The other big issue is proportionality. EAWs are issued for trivial offences, triggering costly extradition procedures in the executing country, and often with drastic human impact. Save in some extremely rare cases where extradition would deprive young children of their primary carers (see F-K v Poland [2012] UKSC 25), the courts consider themselves bound to extradite no matter how trivial the offence as there is no proportionality check provided in law.

The Radu opportunity

The reference in Radu appeared to provide the CJEU with an opportunity to address at least some of these issues: a Romanian court, seised of a challenge to a German EAW, referred six generalised questions to the CJEU asking about its obligations under the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

A reminder: the Charter is a document with the same legal force as the EU Treaties (free movement, etc), which draws together and spells out the basic common standards which Member States – including the UK ([116]-[122]) – must respect when they are operating within an area governed by EU law.

The Romanian court supplied extremely limited background but appeared to ask whether a Member State executing an EAW must observe the Charter, in particular Articles 6, 47 and 48 which protect the rights to liberty and fair trials, and when these might require it to refuse extradition. It also appeared to ask whether the Charter entailed some form of proportionality assessment.

These were potentially big questions. The case was handed to the Grand Chamber, and various Member States intervened. Some suggested that human rights breaches in the issuing state could never prevent extradition; others, and the European Commission, suggested that the Charter might, on an ‘exceptional’ basis, require refusal where there was a ‘manifest’, or ‘flagrant’ breach in the issuing state. It was an issue crying out for guidance.

The Opinion

Advocate-General Sharpston QC answered the call in her Opinion. She confirmed that the limited grounds for refusing extradition in the EAW Framework Decision were not exhaustive: judicial authorities were ‘bound to have regard to the fundamental rights set out in the Convention and Charter’ (at [73]).

She went further, suggesting when those rights might require refusal of extradition: the ‘flagrant denial’ test was ‘too nebulous’ ([82]) and for Charter purposes it made more sense to look for a ‘substantially well-founded’ ([85]) risk of a breach ‘such as to fundamentally destroy the fairness of the trial’ ([83]), which seemed a more workable test. She even added that the use of the EAW in minor offences which would not, in a purely national context, justify pre-trial detention provokes a disproportionate interference with the right to liberty ([61]).

The Judgment

However, the CJEU took a narrower view. Despite the general nature of the Romanian court’s questions, the CJEU decided that the underlying issue was Germany’s failure to subpoena Radu before seeking his extradition. It found that Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter did not allow refusal of an EAW for this reason ([39]), since (according to the CJEU) the effectiveness of the EAW depended on surprise ([40)], and the person had a chance to be heard in the executing state ([41]-[42]).

The CJEU did not, therefore, state as a matter of principle whether a court executing an EAW must do so having regard to the person’s Charter rights – which would have been helpful given the legislative picture in some countries – and whether it may have regard to matters in the issuing state, past or future, when deciding whether those rights are respected. Nor did it say anything about proportionality, which is surely relevant where the heavy-handed approach of extradition has been preferred to the lighter touch of first summoning the person.

What next?

The CJEU can be a helpful force and Fair Trials International will continue to encourage courts to make references for preliminary rulings (as in this Czech intervention). However, the CJEU has not yet taken opportunities to read safeguards into the EAW system and Radu puts the ball firmly back in the Member States’ court to adopt legislative reforms. The Framework Decision needs recasting with an emphasis on human rights protection and a formal proportionality check. Related laws designed to make the system work better (like the European Supervision Order, enabling a defendant extradited prematurely to be bailed back home instead of sitting on remand) should be implemented. Without these improvements, the EAW will continue needlessly to cause injustice.

Alex Tinsley is the Strategic Caseworker at Fair Trials International, a human rights charity which provides assistance to people arrested outside their own country and campaigns for fair trials according to recognised international standards.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

1 comment;


  1. Gavin Steele says:

    Wouldn’t this be a classic case in which the ECJ ruling could be “appealed” to the European Court of Human Rights if – as foreseen in the Lisbon Treaty, and currently being negotiated – the EU were ever to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights? Just a thought…

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: