Minister for Justice v Koltun

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Patrick McGrath
• Judgment Date: 14 October 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 549
• Docket Number: [2023 No.152 EXT]

Between

Minister for Justice

Applicant

and

Grzegorz Koltun

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 549

[2023 No.152 EXT]

THE HIGH COURT

European arrest warrant – Surrender – Correspondence – Applicant seeking the surrender of the respondent – Whether correspondence was established

Facts: The applicant, the Minister for Justice, applied to the High Court seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent, Mr Koltun, to the Republic of Poland pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant dated 27 March 2018 (the EAW) issued by a Judge at the District Court of Lublin. The respondent's points of objection were as follows: (a) Poland may no longer enforce the sentence imposed upon him in Lublin Circuit Court because he had absconded, and the United Kingdom had the sole power of enforcement, referring to Articles 21 and 22 of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA; (b) there had been a failure to comply with the requirements of s. 11(1A) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003; (c) surrender was prohibited under s. 22 of the 2003 Act; (d) correspondence was not established; (e) his complaint under s. 45 of the 2003 Act related to the hearing which took place in Poland; (f) if surrendered, there was a real risk that he would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); (g) his surrender would lead to a breach of his and his family’s rights under Article 8 ECHR, citing egregious delay; (h) a portion of the EAW identified the wrong enforceable judgment amounting to a failure to comply with s. 11(1A)(e) of the 2003 Act; and (i) the Polish Courts, in converting the sentence to one of 15 years, breached the near identical provisions of Article 7 ECHR and Article 49 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights in imposing a heavier penalty than that which ‘was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed’.

Held by McGrath J that: (a) the 2008 Framework Decision had no application to the case; (b) there had been no failure to comply with the requirements of s. 11 of the 2003 Act; (c) the respondent had simply made a bald assertion of a concern of a possible breach of the Rule of Specialty by the Polish authorities; (d) correspondence had been established in the case; (e) it was not neccessary to consider whether the hearing in October 2003 which converted the sentence was a ‘trial resulting in the decision’ as interpreted by the CJEU - the process leading to the imposition of such sentence complied with the requirements of s. 45 and/or was a process which vindicated his defence rights; (f) there was no basis for McGrath J, acting in accordance with the principles of mutual trust and confidence, to reject the assurances given by the Polish authorities; (g) this was not a case where, owing to the passage of time, it could be said that family and personal circumstances had developed such that it was one of those rare cases where surrender would be disproportionate and amount to a breach of the respondent's rights under the ECHR or the Constitution; (h) it was clear from the warrant and additional information what was the enforceable sentence order that it was sought to enforce and what was the balance of that sentence remaining to be served; and (i) this was not a case where the execution of the sentence in Poland retroactively altered the scope of the penalty imposed on him in the United Kingdom for the offences in question in a manner which worsened his situation.

McGrath J made an order for the surrender of the applicant on foot of the EAW.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT delivered by Mr. Justice Patrick McGrath on 14 October 2025

1 The applicant seeks an order for the surrender of the respondent to the Republic of Poland pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant dated the 27 March 2018 (“the EAW”). This EAW was issued by Judge Aleksandra Machel – Dzik, Judge at the District Court of Lublin.

2 The factual background to this application is unusual and somewhat complex. On the 16 February 1999, the Respondent was convicted before Manchester Crown Court in the United Kingdom of an offence of participating in a conspiracy to supply diamorphine. The offence involved a conspiracy with other named co-conspirators, between the 29 June 1997 and the 4 December 1997, to supply a controlled drug (diamorphine) to others.

3 On the 8 March 1999, the Respondent was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for this offence. On the 31 March 2000, the Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by the Respondent against his conviction and sentence.

4 On the 10 April 2000, the Respondent filed a motion to transfer the execution of his sentence from the United Kingdom to Poland. It was this motion which resulted in the Circuit Court in Lublin receiving a request from the Polish Ministry of Justice seeking the transfer of the execution of this sentence. The application was made pursuant to Article 609(1) of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that if a foreign state requests the execution of a validly imposed penalty of deprivation of liberty with respect to a Polish citizen or a person having permanent residence within the territory of Poland, the Minister for Justice must bring a motion before the competent court in Poland to issue an order regarding the admissibility of the taking over of the order for execution in Poland.

5 On the 20 November 2001, the Circuit Court in Lublin issued a decision to ascertain the admissibility of transferring the execution of the respondent's sentence to Poland. This was done on the basis that he was a Polish citizen and had ‘agreed to serve the sentence in Poland’. As he was still in custody in the UK at that time, to enable the transfer of the execution of the sentence, the Polish Court implemented a precautionary measure in the form of the temporary arrest of Mr Koltun for a period of 30 days following his entry into Poland. The Respondent was duly transported to Poland on the 15 September 2003.

6 The documentation received confirms that the respondent was at all times aware of these proceedings, had filed a motion requesting this transfer and had appointed a lawyer of his choice, Ms Anna Popka, to represent him in the proceedings.

7 On the 7 October 2003, the Circuit Court in Lublin decided that the offence committed in the UK constituted an offence under Polish Law. It corresponded to two offences: a misdemeanour under Article 258(1) of the Polish Penal Code and an offence under Article 42 of the Act on the Prevention of Drug Abuse, 1997. The Court however held that the penalty imposed in Manchester Crown Court was ‘unknown’ under the Polish legal code. For that reason, the Court in Lublin ‘converted’ the sentence of 18 years imposed by the Manchester Crown Court, issuing a decision in which it ‘substituted’ a sentence of 15 years imprisonment. That was a ‘penalty …. prescribed by law for the same offence in Poland’. The court furthermore gave the Respondent credit for the time he had spent in custody between 8 December 1997 and the 7 October 2003.

8 The Respondent's counsel. Ms. Anna Popko appeared on his behalf at this hearing and was in due course serve with a copy of the decision of the Court with instructions as to the time and means of appeal. No appeal was lodged against the decision.

9 It was this decision, based on Article 611C of the Polish Criminal Code which provides for the taking over of an order for execution of a sentence imposed by a foreign court by a Polish Court, which ‘converted the sentence of deprivation of liberty’ imposed in Manchester Crown Court, that became the basis for the detention of the Respondent thereafter in a Polish prison. The Respondent remained in custody on foot of this order until the 12 December 2005. On this date, pursuant to a decision of the Tarnobrzeg Circuit Court granting him a break of six months from serving the sentence, he left custody initially for a period of 6 months and thereafter, with the permission of the Court, for a further period of six months. The Respondent did not, as was his legal obligation, return to custody at the end of this 12-month period but instead left for Ireland.

10 On the 27 March 2018, an EAW was issued for the Respondent by a Judge of the District Court in Lublin. This warrant seeks to enforce the remaining sentence of six years, 11 months and 26 days imprisonment.

11 The Respondent was arrested on an SIS alert on the 11 September 2023. The EAW was duly produced to the Court on the 14 September 2023. The Respondent was admitted to bail and has remains at liberty pending the outcome of these proceedings.

Uncontentious Issues

12 No issue is raised in relation to identity, and I am satisfied the respondent is the person in respect of whom this EAW has been issued.

13 The EAW is properly issued by a judicial authority in the issuing state.

14 The Court is not required to refuse surrender under ss. 21A, 23 or 24 of the 2003 Act.

15 No issues arise under ss. 39, 41, 42, 43 or 46 of the 2003 Act.

Gustas Issue

16 The hearing of the application for surrender pursuant to s.16 of the 2003 Act began before Greally J on the 19 December 2023. On that date the parties made submission relating to the application of the decision of Donnelly J in Minister for Justice v Gustas [2021] IEHC 572 on the facts of this case.

17 In that case Donnelly J considered a situation where a sentence had been imposed in Norway for a drugs offence, and which was subsequently ‘recognised in the Republic of Lithuania by the decision of the District Court’ pursuant to a 2011 bilateral treaty. Following the Respondent's release, Lithuania subsequently sought his surrender on foot of an EAW to serve the remainder of the sentence.

18 A preliminary reference was made by the High Court to the CJEU as to the application of the Framework Decision to the case. The CJEU ruled that the Framework Decision must be interpreted as meaning that...