Minister for Justice v Cup

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Patrick McGrath
• Judgment Date: 19 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 753
• Docket Number: Record No. 2025 No. 61 EXT

Between

Minister for Justice

Applicant

and

Robert Cup

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 753

Record No. 2025 No. 61 EXT

THE HIGH COURT

European arrest warrant – Surrender – Correspondence – Applicant seeking the surrender of the respondent – Whether the offences in relation to which surrender was sought corresponded to offences in Irish law

Facts: Judge Soltyinska, Judge of the District Court in Kraków, Poland, who was a ‘judicial authority’ within the meaning of s. 2 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, issued a European arrest warrant (EAW), dated 14 December 2024. The respondent, Mr Cup, raised the following grounds of objection: (a) the surrender of the respondent was precluded as the matter before the High Court had already been determined by the Court and the issue was therefore subject to res judicata and/or issue estoppel, the earlier judgment had created a right for the respondent, this second attempt to seek his surrender constituted a collateral attack on the Court’s earlier judgment, and/or these later proceedings amounted to an abuse of process; (b) the EAW failed to disclose an enforceable judgment and thereby did not comply with the requirements of s. 11(1A)(e) of the 2003 Act; (c) the enforceability of the sentence for which surrender was sought was statute barred under the law of the Requesting State; (d) there was an impermissible lack of clarity or ambiguity in relation to the penalty imposed and/or for which surrender was sought and the EAW therefore failed to comply with the requirements of s. 11(1A)(g)(iii); (e) there had been a manifest error by the Requesting State in certifying that the offences in relation to which surrender was sought were ones which fell within Article 32.2 of the Framework Decision and/or the offences disclosed and not ones which correspond to offences in Irish law; (f) his surrender would constitute a disproportionate interference with his family rights under the Constitution and/or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and surrender should be refused under s. 37 of the 2003 Act.

Held by McGrath J that: (a) the Court was not precluded from entering into a consideration of this EAW as a result of the ruling made in respect of the first EAW - the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of that ruling by way of an issue estoppel or accrued right; (b) this was not one of those rare cases where the Court ought to refuse surrender on the grounds that, for the reasons advanced by the respondent, it had been demonstrated that his surrender would amount to an abuse of the processes of the Court; (c) the position was clear as to when the limitation period expired in this case; (d) there was no confusion as to the sentence that remained to be served based on the information before the Court; (e) the evidence established compliance with the requirements of s. 45 of the 2003 Act; (f) the acts or omissions that constitute the offence in respect of which surrender was sought corresponded with offences under Irish law.

McGrath J ordered the surrender of the respondent pursuant to s. 16 of the 2003 Act.

Application granted.

JUDGEMENT delivered by Mr Justice Patrick McGrath on 19 December 2025

A. BACKGROUND

1 A European arrest warrant [‘EAW’], dated the 14 December 2024, was issued by Judge Aleksandra Soltyinska, Judge of the District Court in Kraków, Poland, who is a ‘judicial authority’ within the meaning of s. 2 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003 [‘the 2003 Act’]. The Warrant was modified on the 13 March 2025 and the Respondent was thereafter arrested on the 10 April 2025.

2 No issue is taken as to identity, and I am in any event satisfied that the Respondent is the person named in the Warrant.

3 I am satisfied none of the issues referred to in ss. 22, 23 or 24 of the 2003 Act arise for consideration and surrender is not precluded for any of the reasons set out therein.

4 This EAW was issued for the purposes of enforcing an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of two years, the portion of which remains to be served being 1 year, 8 months and 6 days. The decision upon which the EAW is based is a judgement issued at Srodmiescie Regional Court, Kraków on the 18 June 2003 which was upheld by an Appeal Court on the 16 July 2004, on which date it became final and binding.

5 Two s. 20 requests were sent to the Issuing Judicial Authority seeking additional information on 2 May 2025 and 9 June 2025. Their replies were received on 5 May 2025 and 23 June 2025 respectively.

6 The Respondent has raised the following grounds of objection:-

• (a) The surrender of the Respondent is precluded as:

  • — The matter before the Court has already been determined by this Court and the issue is therefore subject to Res Judicata and / or Issue Estoppel;

  • — The earlier judgement in relation to this matter of 21 February 2025 has created a right for the Respondent;

  • — This second attempt to seek his surrender constitutes a collateral attack on the Court's earlier Judgment of 21 February 2025; and / or

  • — In circumstances where his surrender was previously refused, these later proceedings amount to an abuse of process.

• (b) The EAW fails to disclose an enforceable judgment and thereby does not comply with the requirements of s. 11(1A)(e) of the 2003 Act;

• (c) The enforceability of the sentence for which surrender is sought is statute barred under the law of the Requesting State;

• (d) There is an impermissible lack of clarity or ambiguity in relation to the penalty imposed and / or for which surrender is sought and the Warrant therefore fails to comply with the requirements of s. 11 (1A)(g)(iii) of the 2003 Act;

• (e) There has been a manifest error by the Requesting State in certifying that the offences in relation to which surrender is sought are ones which fall within Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision and / or the offences disclosed and not ones which correspond to offences in Irish Law;

• (f) His surrender would constitute a disproportionate interference with his family rights under the Constitution and/or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and surrender should be refused under s. 37 of the 2003 Act.

B. PRECLUSION

7 There is a somewhat unusual background to this matter. A previous EAW [ ‘the first EAW’] seeking his surrender for these matters had been endorsed by the High Court on 1 February 2016. The Respondent was arrested thereon on 21 February 2025 and produced before the Court on that date.

8 In the first EAW it was indicated that that the Statute of Limitations in Poland for the enforcement of the applicable sentence for which surrender was sought had expired on 16 July 2019. The Minister had asked that the IJA should be requested to confirm that the position set out on the face of that EAW as to the expiry of Statute of Limitations in Poland was correct. The Respondent, relying on the comments of Mr Justice Collins in the Court of Appeal at paragraph 10 of his judgement in Minister for Justice v Siklosi [2023] IECA 142, submitted that in the absence of any suggestion that the Warrant did not set out the position correctly (and there was none offered), there was no good reason to go behind what was stated in the EAW on this issue. The court agreed with the Respondent and, as it was clear from the face of the first EAW that the enforcement of the sentence in question was by that time statute barred, refused the application and discharged Mr Cup from those proceedings. This ruling was made ex tempore.

9 Following the discharge of the Respondent from the first EAW, the IJA issued a fresh warrant [‘ the second EAW’] which was received by the Central Authority on 13 March 2025. This warrant, which is the one under consideration in these proceedings, was endorsed by the High Court on 18 March 2025 and the Respondent was arrested thereon on 10 April 2025.

10 As a result of additional information received from the IJA on 5 May 2025, it was further established that the first EAW had been previously forwarded to the Central Authority in Ireland on 22 October 2010 and the Respondent was arrested thereon on the 4 April 2011. Having been released on bail, he subsequently absconded to the United Kingdom but attempts to arrest him there proved unsuccessful. The warrant was subsequently again transmitted due to a ‘renewed possibility of establishing his whereabouts in Ireland’ but the Respondent was not arrested and remained at large until the 11 February 2025.

11 The current warrant is in substance the same as the first warrant in that:-

• a. It is stated to have issued on the same date, 14 December 2004, as the earlier one; and

• b. The Respondent is sought to serve the same sentence of imprisonment in both warrants.

12 This warrant is however different from the first EAW as, firstly it was modified on 5 March 2025 to indicate that the Statute of Limitations in respect of the enforcement of the sentence was extended to 16 July 2029. In Part F of the EAW this modification is explained by reference to the ‘ requested person's continued fugivity’ as a result of which ‘a decision was made to suspend the enforcement proceedings, which results in the interruption of the statute of limitations for a period of 10 years. Consequently, the enforcement of the sentence will not be possible after 16 July 2029’ This decision to interrupt the running of the Statute of Limitations had in fact been made on 16 December 2015 by the Kraków Srodmiescie Regional Court, Fourteenth Division.

13 The Respondent submits that, in the particular circumstances of this case, surrender is precluded on this new EAW either because of (a) issue estoppel or (b) the acquisition by the Respondent of a vested right as a result of the decision of this Court in relation to the earlier EAW in February of this year.

14 The Respondent here refers to the following factors:-

• a. The issuing state did not seek to...