Minister for Justice and Equality v Collopy (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, Minister for Justice and Equality, applied for the surrender of the Respondent to Bulgaria pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated 2nd October 2018. The EAW was issued by the Prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Nessebar, acting as the issuing authority, seeking to enforce a remaining sentence of one year and six months’ imprisonment for a drink-driving offence committed on 23rd May 2016. The EAW was endorsed by the High Court on 8th September 2020, and the Respondent was arrested and brought before the High Court on 5th November 2020. The Respondent did not attend the original trial but was legally represented. He swore an affidavit outlining his arrest, legal representation, family circumstances, and medical condition. Multiple affidavits and reports were submitted concerning the Respondent’s health and prison conditions in Bulgaria, including correspondence from Bulgarian authorities and reports from Bulgarian lawyers and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. The Court considered these materials in determining whether surrender would expose the Respondent to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Prosecutor General’s Office qualifies as a competent issuing authority under the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision and the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
2. Whether the minimum gravity requirements for surrender under the Act of 2003 are met.
3. Whether the Respondent’s defence rights under section 45 of the Act of 2003 were respected.
4. Whether surrender of the Respondent would violate his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights or Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union due to prison conditions or medical care.
5. Whether the presumption of compliance by the issuing state under section 4A of the Act of 2003 has been rebutted.
6. Whether surrender would be incompatible with the State’s obligations under the ECHR, its protocols, or the Constitution pursuant to section 37 of the Act of 2003.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Prosecutor General’s Office is a competent and independent issuing authority under the Framework Decision and the Act of 2003.
• The Respondent’s sentence exceeds the minimum threshold for surrender.
• The Respondent’s defence rights were respected and no breach of section 45 of the Act of 2003 occurred.
• The assurances and information provided by Bulgarian authorities regarding prison conditions and medical care are adequate.
• The Respondent will be covered by the National Health Insurance Fund and receive appropriate medical treatment.
• Measures are in place to address inter-prisoner violence, with incidents recorded and reported to prosecutors.
• The presumption of compliance by the issuing state under section 4A of the Act of 2003 has not been rebutted.
• Surrender is not incompatible with the State’s obligations under the ECHR or Constitution.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent contended that the issuing judicial authority failed to adequately engage with the specific circumstances of the case, particularly regarding medical care and prison conditions.
• Concerns were raised about poor prison conditions, including overcrowding, inadequate medical facilities, and inter-prisoner violence.
• The assurances regarding healthcare provision were characterized as inadequate and unsatisfactory.
• The Respondent highlighted his medical condition and previous imprisonment experience with poor conditions.

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 accepted the Prosecutor General’s Office as a competent issuing authority under the Framework Decision and the Act of 2003, noting its legal independence. The Court acknowledged that the EAW was a conviction warrant and that proportionality had been judicially assessed in Bulgaria, relying on the CJEU precedent in ZB.

The Court found that the minimum gravity threshold for surrender was met, given the sentence exceeded four months. It was satisfied that the Respondent’s defence rights were respected, as he was legally represented at trial and appeal, despite his absence at the original hearing.

Regarding the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, the Court examined multiple affidavits and reports detailing prison conditions and medical care in Bulgaria. While recognizing criticisms of medical facilities and prison conditions, including issues with overcrowding, bedbugs, and inter-prisoner violence, the Court accepted the assurances from Bulgarian authorities that the Respondent would be detained in Sofia Prison under conditions meeting minimum legal standards, including adequate living space and access to medical care through the National Health Insurance Fund.

The Court noted the Respondent’s foreign citizenship would not impede his access to health insurance and medical treatment. Although some concerns raised by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee were acknowledged, the Court found these to be largely hypothetical and outweighed by clear assurances from the issuing state. The Court further noted that incidents of inter-prisoner violence are recorded and reported to prosecutors, mitigating risk.

Applying section 4A of the Act of 2003, the Court found the presumption of compliance by the issuing state was not rebutted. In considering section 37, the Court concluded that surrender would not be incompatible with the State’s obligations under the ECHR, its protocols, or the Constitution. The Respondent’s objection under section 37 was dismissed.

Consequently, the Court found no legal impediment to surrender under the Act of 2003 or the Framework Decision and ordered the Respondent’s surrender to Bulgaria.

Holding and Implications

The Court ORDERED THE SURRENDER of the Respondent to Bulgaria pursuant to section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

This decision results in the Respondent being transferred to serve his remaining sentence in Bulgaria. The Court’s ruling confirms the applicability of the Framework Decision and the Act of 2003 to conviction warrants issued by prosecutorial authorities deemed independent and competent. No new legal precedent was set beyond the application of existing law and standards regarding prison conditions and fundamental rights safeguards in the context of surrender under a European Arrest Warrant.