Minister for Justice and Equality v Krimelis (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, applied for the surrender of the Respondent pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by the Republic of Latvia on 16 April 2021. The EAW sought the Respondent’s surrender to enforce a two-year imprisonment sentence imposed on 14 May 2015, with approximately two years remaining to be served. The High Court endorsed the EAW on 26 July 2021, and the Respondent was arrested on 22 November 2021 and brought before the High Court on 23 November 2021. The Respondent did not dispute identity or procedural compliance with the EAW Act provisions. The Respondent raised objections to surrender based on procedural clarity, medical conditions, prison conditions in Latvia, and family life considerations.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the procedural requirements under sections 16(1)(c) and 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended, were complied with in relation to the revocation of the suspended sentence.
2. Whether surrender is prohibited under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, due to risks of inhuman or degrading treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, considering the Respondent’s medical condition and prison conditions in Latvia.
3. Whether surrender would breach the Respondent’s rights under Article 8 ECHR concerning family life and alleged delay in issuing the EAW.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• Objection to surrender due to lack of clarity and proof regarding compliance with procedural requirements for revocation of suspension of sentence under sections 16(1)(c) and 45 of the EAW Act.
• Claimed risk of breach of rights under Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the ECHR, Article 40.3.1 of the Constitution, and Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the EU Charter due to prison conditions, medical treatment inadequacies, and management in Latvia.
• Asserted that surrender would disproportionately interfere with family life rights under Article 8 ECHR, given his medical condition and dependence on family support in Ireland.
• Raised concerns about delay in issuing the EAW and argued that he was not properly informed or engaged with the Latvian Probation Service, leading to reactivation of his sentence without his knowledge.
• Presented affidavits detailing medical conditions (epilepsy, traumatic brain injury), treatment received in Ireland, fears about appropriate medical care in Latvia, and family circumstances including reliance on his children for support and care.

Applicant's Arguments

• Asserted that the EAW was properly issued and endorsed, with no procedural defects regarding the revocation of the suspension of sentence, supported by additional information from the Issuing Judicial Authority.
• Provided assurances from Latvian authorities regarding prison conditions, medical treatment availability, and specific arrangements for the Respondent’s medical needs, including medication for epilepsy.
• Submitted country of origin material evidencing systemic issues in Latvian prisons but argued these did not amount to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment for the Respondent in particular.
• Contended that the Respondent’s delay in surrender was attributable to his own failure to engage with probation and that the delay in issuing the EAW was not unreasonable or egregious.
• Maintained that the presumption of compliance with fundamental rights obligations by the issuing state under section 4A of the EAW Act had not been rebutted.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first confirmed identity and procedural compliance with the EAW Act, dismissing objections relating to the revocation of the suspended sentence by applying the CJEU ruling in Ardic and Supreme Court authority in Lipinski. It found that the revocation hearing did not require the same procedural safeguards as the original trial and that the Respondent’s defence rights were respected.

Regarding the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, the Court applied the two-step test from ML v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen. It carefully considered objective, reliable, and updated country of origin material, including reports from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the United Nations Committee Against Torture, the European Prison Observatory, and the US State Department, which documented systemic deficiencies and poor conditions in Latvian prisons. However, the Court emphasized that systemic issues alone do not establish a real risk for the individual concerned.

The Court evaluated specific assurances from the Latvian Department of Imprisonment Institutions concerning the Respondent’s medical assessment within three days of arrival, provision of medication including epilepsy treatment, and general prison conditions. It placed significant weight on these assurances and found no evidence that the Respondent’s prescribed medication would be unavailable. The Court distinguished the present case from precedent involving exceptional medical circumstances and family support, noting the Respondent’s evidence was insufficiently cogent.

On the Article 8 ECHR objection based on family life and delay, the Court applied the principles from Vestartas, Smits, and D.E. The Court found the delay in issuing the EAW was not egregious given the Latvian authorities only became aware of the Respondent’s whereabouts in 2020. It acknowledged the Respondent’s family and medical circumstances but found these were not exceptional or sufficiently incompatible with the State’s obligations to justify refusal of surrender. The Court emphasized the high evidential burden on the Respondent to rebut the presumption of compliance under section 4A of the EAW Act.

Overall, the Court concluded that none of the statutory or constitutional grounds for refusal applied, that surrender was not prohibited, and that the Respondent’s rights would not be breached by surrender.

Holding and Implications

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

The direct effect of this decision is to facilitate the Respondent’s extradition to serve the remainder of his sentence in Latvia. The Court did not find grounds to set new precedent or expand existing interpretations of the EAW Act or human rights protections beyond established jurisprudence. The decision reinforces the principles of mutual trust among EU Member States, the high evidential burden on persons opposing surrender, and the careful but restrained judicial scrutiny of prison conditions and procedural safeguards in issuing states.