Minister for Justice and Equality v Zarnescu

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Chief Justice.,MacMenamin J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 05 May 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 58
• Date: 05 May 2020
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2020:000021

IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 (AS AMENDED)

AND IN THE MATTER OF MARIUS BOGDAN ZARNESCU (DOB: 16th March 1979)

BETWEEN

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

APPLICANT

AND

MARIUS BOGDAN ZARNESCU

RESPONDENT

[2020] IESCDET 58

Chief Justice.

MacMenamin J.

Baker J.

S:AP:IE:2020:000021

2019 No. 204 EXT

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Minister to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: High Court

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 13 th January, 2020

DATE OF ORDER: 22 nd January, 2020

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 31 st January, 2020

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 20 th February, 2020 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 The general principles applied by this court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment, have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this court in B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6th of December, 2017) and in a unanimous judgment of a full court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812.

2 The additional criteria required to be met to permit a so-called leapfrog appeal directly from the High Court to this Court were addressed in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 20th of November, 2017).

3 Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.

4 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in any detail.

5 Any ruling in a determination concerns whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria identified above, is particular to that application, and is final and conclusive only to that extent and as between the parties.

6 The respondent opposes the grant of leave.

Background

7 This is the application of the Minister for Justice and Equality (“the Minister”) for leave to appeal directly to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Article 34.5.4° of the Constitution from the High Court order dated 22 January, 2020 by which Binchy J. refused the application of the Minister for the surrender of the respondent, Mr Zarnescu, to Romania pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (the “EAW”) dated 23 January, 2018 for the reasons set out in his written judgment dated 13 January, 2020: 2020 IEHC 6.

8 The EAW was issued by a judge of the Court of Onesti in respect of offences said to have been committed by the respondent in Romania.

9 The respondent did not attend the first day of the hearing in the court at Onesti but was represented by his lawyer. He was convicted, and an appeal was listed for hearing on 12 September, 2017. When this was adjourned the respondent was notified of the new date of 7 November, 2017 at the address which he had provided, being a dwelling in...