Minister for Justice and Equality v Schoppik

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMs. Justice Donnelly
Judgment Date08 October 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] IEHC 584
CourtHigh Court
Docket NumberRecord No.2017/109 EXT
Date08 October 2018

[2018] IEHC 584

HIGH COURT

Donnelly J.

Record No.2017/109 EXT

BETWEEN
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
APPLICANT
AND
LADISLAV SCHOPPIK
RESPONDENT

European arrest warrant – Delay – Right to a defence – Applicant seeking the surrender of the respondent to the Czech Republic – Whether the respondent’s surrender was prohibited by s. 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003

Facts: The applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, applied to the High Court, on foot of a European arrest warrant (EAW) dated 11th July, 2016, for the surrender of the respondent, Mr Schoppik, to the Czech Republic. He was sought for the purpose of serving a sentence of five years imposed on him by judgment of the Regional Court of Ostrava dated 28th November, 2003 in conjunction with the judgment of the High Court of Olomouc dated 4th May, 2004, in respect of seven offences. Those judgments were at the core of the issues raised by the respondent in objecting to his surrender. The first point of objection was that because the judgment of the Regional Court in Ostrava was annulled by the judgment of the High Court in Olomouc, it ought not to be included in the EAW as a basis for the application to surrender him.

The second point was whether the respondent’s surrender was prohibited by s. 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The third point concerned an allegation of delay by the Czech authorities to issue an EAW in a timely fashion as required by the Framework Decision of the 13th June, 2002, on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (the 2002 Framework Decision).

Held by Donnelly J that the provisions of s. 11(1A)(g)(iii) of the 2003 Act had been complied with. Donnelly J was satisfied that the respondent’s right to a defence, as protected by s. 45 of the 2003 Act, had not been breached. Donnelly J was not satisfied that there was a real risk that the respondent's Article 3 ECHR rights would be violated should he be surrendered. Donnelly J rejected the respondent’s standalone opposition to his surrender on the grounds of delay; the delay, while lengthy, was not such as to reduce the public interest in his surrender.

Donnelly J held that there was no reason to prohibit the surrender of the respondent to the issuing state under the EAW. Donnelly J therefore made an order for the surrender of the respondent to such person as is duly authorised by the Czech Republic to receive him.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Donnelly delivered the 8th day of October, 2018
Introduction
1

This is an application on foot of a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’) dated 11th July, 2016, for the surrender of the respondent to the Czech Republic. He is sought for the purpose of serving a sentence of five years imposed on him by judgment of the Regional Court of Ostrava dated 28th November, 2003 in conjunction with the judgment of the High Court of Olomouc dated 4th May, 2004, in respect of seven offences. These judgments are at the core of the issues raised by the respondent in objecting to his surrender. It is appropriate to point out that this is the second EAW issued in respect of this respondent. The first surrender was refused due to lack of clarity in the EAW as it became clear that, although the EAW only referred to five offences, his surrender was in fact being sought for seven offences in total.

2

The first point of objection is that because the judgment of the Regional Court in Ostrava was annulled by the judgment of the High Court in Olomouc, it ought not to be included in the EAW as a basis for the application to surrender him.

The second point is whether the respondent's surrender is prohibited by s. 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended (‘the Act of 2003’). The third point concerns an allegation of delay by the Czech authorities to issue an EAW in a timely fashion as required by the Framework Decision of the 13th June, 2002, on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (‘the 2002 Framework Decision’).

The background to the European Arrest Warrant
3

The EAW relates to seven offences for which the respondent has been convicted and sentenced. These are five offences in the general nature of tax evasion, and two pertaining to loan fraud. The details of the offences are set out in part (e) of the EAW and can be summarised as follows:

‘1. On 25th October, he submitted false Value Added Tax Return for 3rd Quarter of 1996…in contradiction to Value Added Tax Act no. 588/ 1992 Coll…and on the grounds of fictitious documents from alleged supplier he wheedled payment of value added tax in total amount of CZK 155,084.00.

2. On 25th October 1996 and 28th January 1997 he filed false Value Added Tax Returns for the 3rd and 4th quarter of 1996 where in contradiction with the Value Added Tax Act no. 588/1992…and having failed to pay value added tax he evaded the tax in total amount of CZK 827,563.00.

3. On 20th October 1997 he filed a false Individual Income Tax Return for tax period 1996, both his and that of his wife…with whom he did business…and based on fictitious documents of alleged suppliers he reduced the tax base in 1996 of both tax payers… and thereby evaded individual income tax in total of CZK 1,488,800.00.

4. On 10th November 1997 he filed false Value Added Tax Returns for the 2nd and 3rd quarter 1997, where among accomplished taxable supplies he included unaccomplished ones…and based on fictitious documents from an alleged supplier, he tried to unlawfully claim the payment of excessive VAT deduction in total amount CZK 180,218.00.

5. On 26th January 1998 he filed a false Value Added Tax Return for the 4th quarter of 1997, where among actually accepted taxable supplies he included unaccomplished supplies…and based on the above mentioned fictitious documents of alleged supplies, he attempted to unlawfully claim excessive value added tax deduction in total amount of CZK 258, 023.00.

6. On 28th August 1998 in Brno together with [named person], Ladislav Schoppik got the loan of CZK 700,000.00…Schoppik committed to pay up the loan before 30th April 1999. Granted loan was used in contradiction to its purpose to pay up previous debts without the knowledge and consent of the Cooperative Savings Association. Schoppik did not pay up the loan…and caused the damage of CZK 700,000.00 to the Cooperative Savings Association.

7. On 14th January 1997 in Krnov he wheedled from [named person] the loan in the amount of CZK 400,000.00 and promised to pay the money back in one week. On the following day 15th January 1997, Schoppik borrowed from him the amount of CZK 500,000.00 and signed the draft committing himself to pay up the amount of CZK 900, 000.00 before 15th August 1997 although he knew when taking over both amounts that with view to his financial situation he would not be able to pay up the amount in the agreed terms or later, and thus he caused the damage of CZK 900,000.00 to [named person].’

Uncontested Matters
4

Before dealing with the specific points raised by the respondent in objecting to his surrender, I will address the formal requirements of the Act of 2003 with which this Court must be satisfied if it is to make an order of surrender.

A Member State that has given effect to the 2002 Framework Decision
5

The surrender provisions of the Act of 2003 apply to those Member States of the European Union that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has designated as having given effect to the 2002 Framework Decision, under their national law. By the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (Designated Member States) (No. 3) Order 2004 ( S.I. 206 of 2004), the Minister for Foreign Affairs designated Czech Republic as a Member State for the purposes of the Act of 2003.

Section 16(1) of the Act of 2003
6

Under the provisions of s. 16 (1) of the Act of 2003 as amended, the High Court may make an order directing that the person be surrendered to the issuing state provided that:

a) the High Court is satisfied that the person before it is the person in respect of whom the EAW was issued,

b) the EAW has been endorsed in accordance with s. 13 for execution,

c) the EAW states, where appropriate, the matters required by s. 45,

d) The High Court is not required, under ss. 21A, 22, 23 or 24 of the Act of 2003 as amended, to refuse surrender,

e) The surrender is not prohibited by Part 3 of the Act of 2003.

Identity
7

No issue has been raised in relation to the respondent's identity. I am satisfied on the basis of the information in the EAW, and on the affidavit of Malachy Dunne, member of An Garda Síochána, and on the affidavit of the respondent, that Ladislav Schoppik who appears before me, is the person in respect of whom the EAW issued.

Endorsement
8

I am satisfied that the EAW has been endorsed in accordance with s.13 of the Act of 2003 for execution.

Sections 21A, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act of 2003
9

Having scrutinised the documentation before me, I am satisfied that I am not required to refuse the surrender of the respondent under the above provisions.

Part 3 of the Act of 2003
10

Subject to further consideration of ss. 37, 38 and 45 of the Act of 2003 and having scrutinised the documents before me, I am satisfied that I am not required to refuse the surrender of the respondent under any other section contained in Part 3 of the said Act.

Section 38 of the Act of 2003
11

Section 38 of the Act of 2003 provides for two situations in which surrender may be ordered for specific offences. If the offence is an offence set out in para. 2 Article 2 of the 2002 Framework Decision then, provided the requirements of minimum gravity in terms of available sentencing powers have been met, there is no requirement to find correspondence for the offence for which the person is requested with an offence in this jurisdiction. If the offence does not come within that list,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Minister for Justice & Equality v Minierski
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • October 24, 2022
    ...Tedeschi v. Italy (Application No. 25685/06), delivered 28 September 2010.” (v) In Minister for Justice and Equality v. Schoppik [2018] IEHC 584, Donnelly J. stated at para. 32; - “[32] The respondent submits that his surrender would be in breach of s. 45 of the Act of 2003 as he did not ap......
  • The Minister for Justice and Equality v Vestartas
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • March 1, 2019
    ... ... Ostrowski [2014] 1 I.L.R.M. 88 and Minister for Justice and Equality v. J.A.T. No. 2 [2016] IESC 17/1 , together with the judgment of the High Court (Donnelly J.) in Minister for Justice and Equality v. Schoppik , delivered on 8 October 2018 ... Discussion: ... 21 I do not propose to cite lengthy extracts from the judgments opened by counsel in support of their respective arguments. The cases mentioned above are well-known to practitioners in this field. The relevant ... ...
  • Minister for Justice and Equality v Zarnescu
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • January 13, 2020
    ...applicant also relies upon the decision of this Court (Donnelly J.) in the case of Minister for Justice & Equality v. Ladislav Schoppik [2018] IEHC 584. In that case the respondent was convicted and sentenced in his absence, but he was represented at the hearing by a lawyer of his choosing.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT