Minister For Justice And Equality v Kaleja (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, Minister for Justice and Equality, applied for the surrender of the Respondent to the Czech Republic under a European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) dated 21st September 2018. The EAW was issued by the District Court in Tachov for the purpose of enforcing a 12-month imprisonment sentence imposed on 9th September 2018 for a driving offence committed on 7th August 2018. The High Court endorsed the EAW on 2nd November 2020, and the Respondent was arrested and brought before the Court on 10th February 2021. The Court confirmed the identity of the Respondent as the person named in the EAW and found no statutory bars to surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the offence specified in the EAW corresponds to an offence under the law of the State for the purposes of surrender under the Act of 2003.
2. Whether the minimum gravity requirements for surrender under the Act of 2003 are met.
3. Whether there are any statutory prohibitions or bars to surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
4. Whether there is a real risk that surrender would expose the Respondent 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

Applicant's Arguments

• The EAW was properly issued and endorsed, and the Respondent is the person named in the warrant.
• The offence corresponds to a domestic offence of driving without a licence under the Road Traffic Act 1961.
• The minimum gravity threshold for surrender is met as the sentence exceeds four months.
• There is no evidence to rebut the presumption that the issuing state respects fundamental rights, including prison conditions.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent submitted that surrender would expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 ECHR due to prison conditions in the Czech Republic.
• The Respondent relied on his affidavit describing prior imprisonment in overcrowded prisons and concerns related to Covid-19 infection risks.
• Counsel referenced a 2019 Committee for the Prevention of Torture report indicating some concerns about personal cell space in Czech prisons.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first confirmed the identity of the Respondent and the validity of the EAW. It found no statutory bars to surrender under the relevant sections of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Applying section 38(1), the Court assessed whether the offence in the EAW corresponded to a domestic offence and found that driving while disqualified corresponds to driving without a licence under Irish law. The minimum gravity threshold was met given the 12-month sentence.

Regarding the Respondent’s Article 3 ECHR objection based on prison conditions, the Court applied the established two-step approach from CJEU jurisprudence. It required objective, reliable, specific, and updated evidence demonstrating deficiencies in detention conditions. The Court found the Respondent’s affidavit insufficiently objective and outdated, the CPT report generally satisfactory and not specific to the prisons where the Respondent would serve the sentence, and no evidence rebutting the presumption under section 4A of the Act that the issuing state respects fundamental rights. The Court therefore dismissed the human rights objection.

Finally, the Court was satisfied that no other provisions prevented surrender and proceeded to order the Respondent’s surrender under section 16(1) of the Act.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision is to ORDER THE SURRENDER of the Respondent to the Czech Republic pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant.

The direct effect is that the Respondent will be surrendered to serve the outstanding sentence for the driving offence. The Court did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed existing principles regarding correspondence of offences and the assessment of Article 3 ECHR objections in the context of European Arrest Warrants.