Minister for Justice v Verberger (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, Minister for Justice, sought an order for the surrender of the Respondent to the Czech Republic pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated 23rd December 2019. The EAW was issued by the District Court in Breclav as the issuing judicial authority and sought surrender to enforce a three-year imprisonment sentence, all of which remained to be served. The Respondent was arrested following a Schengen Information System II alert and brought before the High Court on 8th May 2021. The EAW was produced to the High Court on 19th May 2021. The Court was satisfied that the Respondent was the person to whom the EAW related and that no statutory bars to surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, arose. The minimum gravity requirement was met as the sentence exceeded four months’ imprisonment. The Respondent objected to surrender on grounds relating to clarity of the EAW, and statutory provisions under sections 37 and 38 of the Act of 2003.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the European Arrest Warrant was sufficiently clear and contained adequate information to permit surrender.
2. Whether surrender was precluded under section 38 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 due to lack of correspondence between the offence in the EAW and an offence under domestic law.
3. Whether surrender was precluded under section 37 of the Act of 2003 on the basis that it would be incompatible with the State’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights or the Constitution, specifically due to prison conditions in the issuing state.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent contended that the EAW lacked clarity regarding the number of offences and the location of offences, rendering surrender inappropriate.
• The Respondent argued under section 38 of the Act of 2003 that if the EAW related to multiple offences, some actions might not correspond to offences under Irish law, disputing the correspondence requirement.
• Under section 37 of the Act of 2003, the Respondent submitted that surrender would breach rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution due to alleged poor prison conditions in the Czech Republic, citing reports from various international bodies.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court considered the clarity of the EAW and found that although the EAW indicated one offence with multiple actions, additional information clarified that under Czech law these actions constituted a single criminal offence. The Court was satisfied there was no lack of clarity regarding the number of offences or their location, noting all offences occurred within the Czech Republic and that the Respondent had participated in hearings related to the conviction. The Court found no evidence of prejudice to the Respondent from any lack of detail in the EAW.

Regarding section 38 of the Act of 2003, the Court accepted the additional information confirming the EAW related to a single offence and found that there was correspondence between the offence in the EAW and offences under Irish law, including deception and conspiracy to defraud. Therefore, objections under section 38 were dismissed.

On the section 37 objection concerning human rights and prison conditions, the Court reviewed submissions and reports alleging poor conditions in the Czech prison system. The Court sought and received further information from the issuing state about prison conditions, including procedural safeguards, medical care, and accommodation standards. The Court applied the presumption under section 4A of the Act of 2003 that the issuing state complies with fundamental rights obligations unless rebutted. The Court was not satisfied that the Respondent faced a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if surrendered and concluded that surrender would not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights or the Constitution.

Consequently, the Court dismissed all objections to surrender and found no legal impediment to ordering surrender.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was to ORDER THE SURRENDER of the Respondent to the Czech Republic pursuant to section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

This decision results in the Respondent being surrendered for enforcement of the outstanding sentence. The Court did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed the application of statutory provisions governing European Arrest Warrants, including standards for clarity, correspondence of offences, and human rights protections in surrender proceedings.