Minister for Justice v Danila

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Eileen Creedon
• Judgment Date: 25 July 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IEHC 464
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2022 No. 57 EXT.]

Between

Minister for Justice

Applicant

and

Daniel Danila

Respondent

2022 [IEHC] 464

[2022 No. 57 EXT.]

THE HIGH COURT

European arrest warrant – Surrender – European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 s. 45 – Applicant seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent to Romania pursuant to a European arrest warrant – Whether the surrender of the respondent ought to be refused pursuant to s. 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003

Facts: The applicant, the Minister for Justice, applied to the High Court seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent, Mr Danila, to Romania pursuant to a European arrest warrant dated the 11th of November 2020 (the EAW). The EAW was issued by Judge Marcel from the Saveni Court of Law in the County of Botosani Romania, as the issuing judicial authority. The EAW sought the surrender of the respondent in order to enforce a sentence of 1 year and 4 months imprisonment imposed upon the respondent on the 23rd of December 2019, of which the entirety remained to be served. The sole ground of objection maintained by the respondent was that the surrender of the respondent ought to be refused pursuant to s. 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 as amended as Part D of the EAW as proffered did not meet the requirements of s. 16(1) (c) and/or s. 45 of the 2003 Act.

Held by Creedon J that, noting the case of Minister for Justice and Equality v Ptak [2017] IEHC 418, there was clear designation as to the respondent’s personal service in respect of the summons. Creedon J held that this was all that was required. By virtue of the principles of mutual trust and recognition, the court accepted the designation. Having considered the arguments and the case law to include Minister for Justice v Zarnescue [2020] IESC 59 and having considered specifically the wording of the EAW at paragraph 3.4, the court was satisfied that as a consequence of what was set out in Part D of the EAW the respondent had an unambiguous right to have his case reheard by way of retrial or appeal, that he would be entitled to be present thereat, that he would be entitled to have the evidence to include new evidence re-examined which could lead to the cancellation of the initial decision on foot of which his surrender was sought in the application and that he had 10 days to request such a rehearing. In circumstances where the court was satisfied that the respondent had an unambiguous right to a retrial or an appeal and the quality of that retrial or appeal was consistent with what was required by s. 45 of the 2003 Act, Creedon J dismissed that point of objection.

Creedon J made an order pursuant to s. 16 of the 2003 Act for the surrender of the respondent to Romania.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Eileen Creedon delivered on the 25th day of July 2022

1 By this application, the applicant seeks an order for the surrender of the respondent to Romania pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant dated the 11th of November 2020 (“the EAW”). The EAW was issued by Judge Zota Marcel from the Saveni Court of Law in the County of Botosani Romania, as the issuing judicial authority.

2 The Respondent was convicted by the Saveni Court of Law, Botosani County in Romania on the 26 November 2019 and the decision became final on the 23rd of December 2019, no appeal having been lodged. The EAW seeks the surrender of the respondent in order to enforce a sentence of I year and 4 months imprisonment imposed upon the respondent on the 23rd day of December 2019, of which the entirety of 1 year 4 months remains to be served.

3 The respondent was arrested on the 9th of March 2022, on foot of a Schengen Information System II alert, and brought before the High Court on the same date. The EAW was produced to the High Court on the 21st of March 2022.

4 I am satisfied that the person before the court, the respondent, is the person in respect of whom the EAW was issued. No issue was raised in that regard.

5 I am satisfied that none of the matters referred to in ss. 21A, 22, 23 and 24 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended (“the Act of 2003”), arise for consideration in this application and surrender of the respondent is not precluded for any of the reasons set forth in any of those sections.

6 I am satisfied that the minimum gravity requirements of the Act of 2003 have been met. The sentence in respect of which surrender is sought is in excess of four months' imprisonment.

7 The Respondent was convicted by the Saveni Court of Law, Botosani County in Romania on the 26 November 2019 of two road traffic offences, namely driving a vehicle without a driving licence and driving a non-registered vehicle contrary to Articles 335(1) and 334(1) of the Romanian Criminal Code which offences occurred on the 10th February 2017.

8 I am satisfied that correspondence can be established between the offences referred to in the European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) and offences under the law of the State, that is offences contrary to s.139(3)(a) and s.139(1)(bb) of the Finance Act 1992 (Driving a non-registered vehicle) and s. 38(1) and s.38(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (Driving without a Driving Licence).

9 Part D of the EAW indicates that the respondent did not appear in person at the hearing which resulted in the decision which is sought to be enforced and the issuing judicial authority has indicated that it relies on the following points as outlined in the Table in Article 4A of the Framework Decision transposed by s. 45 of the Act of 2003 being points 3.1(a), 3.2 and 3.4.

10 The sole ground of objection maintained by the respondent is that the surrender of the respondent ought to be refused pursuant to s.45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 as amended as Part D as proffered does not meet the requirements of s.16(1) (c) and/or s. 45 of the Act of 2003.

11 The Respondent swore an affidavit dated the 4th of April 2022 in which he averred inter alia that:

“I say that I am aware of the incident, that my wife and I compensated the owner of the fence, that I was never arrested for the offence and I was never questioned by the police. I was not aware of any court hearing. I did not appoint a lawyer to represent me nor did I waive my right to a lawyer. The first I heard of these proceedings was when my local postman in Stefanesti, which is my home village, contacted my mother-in-law to make me aware of important post towards the end...