Minister For Justice And Equality v Kaleja (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, sought an order for the surrender of the Respondent to the Czech Republic pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated 12th October 2018. The EAW was issued by the District Court in Tachov for the purpose of enforcing a 10-month imprisonment sentence imposed on 12th September 2018 for a driving offence committed on 15th April 2018. The EAW was endorsed by the High Court on 2nd November 2020, and the Respondent was arrested and brought before the Court on 10th February 2021. The Court confirmed that the Respondent was the person named in the EAW and found no statutory bars to surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended. The Court also confirmed that the minimum gravity requirements for surrender were met, given the sentence length.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the offence specified in the European Arrest Warrant corresponds to an offence under the law of the State for the purposes of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
2. Whether any statutory provisions prohibit or preclude the surrender of the Respondent under the Act of 2003.
3. Whether there is a real risk that surrendering the Respondent would subject him to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to prison conditions in the Czech Republic.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent contended that surrender would expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, based on prison conditions in the Czech Republic.
• He provided an affidavit describing prior imprisonment in Czech prisons, alleging overcrowding and extended confinement in cells.
• The Respondent expressed concerns about the high Covid-19 infection and death rates in the Czech Republic.
• Counsel for the Respondent relied on a 2019 Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) report, which noted general prison conditions as satisfactory but raised some concerns about personal cell space per inmate.

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant maintained that none of the statutory bars to surrender under the Act of 2003 applied.
• The Applicant submitted that the offence described in the EAW corresponds to an offence under the law of the State, specifically driving without a licence contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1961.
• The Applicant argued that the Respondent’s objections based on prison conditions did not meet the threshold required by established jurisprudence for refusing surrender on human rights grounds.
• The Applicant relied on the presumption under section 4A of the Act of 2003 that the issuing state respects fundamental rights, including those under the Framework Decision and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first confirmed the identity of the Respondent as the person named in the EAW and found no statutory bars to surrender under the relevant sections of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The Court applied section 38(1) of the Act to verify that the offence specified in the EAW corresponded to an offence under the law of the State, concluding that driving while disqualified corresponded to driving without a licence contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1961. This correspondence was not seriously contested.

The Court considered the Respondent’s objection based on alleged inhuman and degrading treatment due to prison conditions. Applying the two-step approach established by the Court of Justice of the European Union and Irish case law, the Court required objective, reliable, specific, and updated evidence of deficiencies in detention conditions. The Respondent’s affidavit was deemed insufficiently objective and outdated, relating to imprisonment approximately five years prior. The CPT report cited was also dated and did not address the specific prisons where the Respondent would likely serve his sentence. No evidence was presented of systemic conditions breaching minimum personal space requirements or other standards indicative of Article 3 violations.

The Court further noted the presumption under section 4A of the Act of 2003 that issuing states comply with the Framework Decision and fundamental human rights obligations, a presumption not rebutted by the Respondent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Respondent’s human rights objections.

The Court was satisfied that no other statutory provisions barred surrender and proceeded to order the Respondent’s surrender pursuant to section 16(1) of the Act of 2003.

Holding and Implications

The Court ordered the surrender of the Respondent to the Czech Republic pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant.

The direct effect of this decision is the enforcement of the Respondent’s 10-month imprisonment sentence for a driving offence in the Czech Republic. The Court did not find sufficient grounds to refuse surrender on human rights grounds, reaffirming the presumption that issuing states comply with fundamental rights obligations under the Framework Decision and the European Convention on Human Rights. No broader precedent was established beyond the application of existing legal principles and jurisprudence.