Minister for Justice and Equality v Andrius Šciuka

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Paul Burns
• Judgment Date: 18 January 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IEHC 31
• Docket Number: [2017 No. 54 EXT.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 18 January 2021

Between

Minister for Justice and Equality

Applicant

and

Andrius Ščiuka

Respondent

[2021] IEHC 31

[2017 No. 54 EXT.]

THE HIGH COURT

European arrest warrant – Surrender – European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 s. 37 – Applicant seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent to the Republic of Lithuania on foot of a European arrest warrant – Whether surrender was precluded under s. 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003

Facts: The applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, applied to the High Court pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent, Mr Ščiuka, to the Republic of Lithuania on foot of a European arrest warrant dated 14th February, 2017 (the EAW) issued by Judge Sadauskaitė of the Klaipdėa Regional Court in Lithuania as the issuing judicial authority. The surrender of the respondent was sought in order to enforce a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment, of which, it had been clarified, 2 years, 8 months and 12 days remained to be served. An undated notice of objection to surrender was filed, summarised as follows: (i) surrender was precluded under s. 38 of the 2003 Act as there were no corresponding offences under the law of the State (counsel for the respondent indicated at the hearing of the matter that he was not pursuing any point on lack of correspondence); (ii) surrender was precluded as the EAW lacked clarity as regards the sentence to be served and failed to meet the requirements of s. 11 of the 2003 Act; (iii) surrender was precluded as the judgment/sentence was statute-barred and was therefore not immediately enforceable; and (iv) surrender was precluded under s. 37 of the 2003 Act as it would be incompatible with the State’s obligations under articles 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR), having regard to the conditions in Lithuanian prisons and the fact that the respondent had two children.

Held by Burns J that by way of additional information dated the 28th July, 2020, the issuing judicial authority explained how the period of the remainder of the sentence to be served was calculated and confirmed that 2 years, 8 months and 12 days remained; the respondent had served an additional 10 days after the decision to release him on conditions. Burns J was satisfied that any ambiguity in that regard had been clarified. Burns J held that by further additional information dated 30th November, 2020 the issuing judicial authority clarified that the period for execution of the remainder of the sentence would not expire until 3rd August, 2022. Burns J rejected the respondent’s objections to surrender based on s. 11 of the 2003 Act and/or the Lithuanian statute of limitations. Burns J noted that s. 4A of the 2003 Act provides for a presumption that an issuing state will comply with the requirements of the Council Framework Decision dated 13th June, 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures Between Member States, as amended, which requires respect for the fundamental rights of the requested person. Burns J found that the respondent had failed to meet the evidential threshold that would justify the Court in regarding that presumption as having been rebutted or in setting the Court upon an enquiry into the likely prison conditions which the respondent would face if surrendered. Burns J noted that no reports from government sources or international human rights bodies had been adduced by the respondent and that no report from a lawyer in Lithuania was relied upon. Burns J held that no evidence had been adduced in support of the objection that surrender would be in breach of any of the respondent’s other ECHR rights as set out in the notice of objection; in particular, there was no evidence before the Court that the respondent’s personal or family circumstances were so exceptional that the Court should refuse surrender. Burns J rejected the respondent’s objections to surrender based on s. 37 of the 2003 Act.

Burns J held that, having dismissed the respondent’s objections, the Court would make an order pursuant to s. 16(1) of the 2003 Act for the surrender of the respondent to Lithuania.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Paul Burns delivered on the 18th day of January, 2021

1 By an application pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended (“the Act of 2003”), the applicant seeks an order for the surrender of the respondent to the Republic of Lithuania (“Lithuania”) on foot of a European arrest warrant dated 14th February, 2017 (“the EAW”) issued by Judge Aurelija Sadauskaite of the Klaipdea Regional Court in Lithuania as the issuing judicial authority. The surrender of the respondent is sought in order to enforce a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment, of which, it has been clarified, 2 years, 8 months and 12 days remains to be served.

2 The EAW was endorsed by the High Court on 13th March, 2017. The respondent was arrested and brought before the High Court on 27th June, 2020.

3 I am satisfied that the person before the Court is the person in respect of whom the EAW was issued and no issue was taken in respect of this.

4 I am satisfied that none of the matters referred to in ss. 21A, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act of 2003 arise and that the surrender of the respondent is not prohibited for the reasons set forth therein. No issue was taken in respect of those sections.

5 I am satisfied that the minimum gravity requirements as set out in the Act of 2003 are met, as the remainder of the sentence which the respondent is required to serve, if surrendered, is in excess of 4 months' imprisonment.

6 At part E of the EAW, it is indicated that the sentence in question was imposed...