Minister for Justice v Yahiaoui (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Minister for Justice ("the Minister") applied under section 16(2) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended ("the Act of 2003"), seeking an order for the surrender of the Respondent to the French Republic ("France") pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") issued on 17 September 2019 by the Anti-terrorist Public Prosecutor at the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris ("the issuing judicial authority").

The EAW concerns a six-year prison sentence imposed in absentia on 30 November 2001 by the Paris Regional Court for an offence of participating in a terrorist group, involving producing forged identity documents and trafficking weapons between France and the Netherlands during 1996-1998. The entire sentence remains to be served.

The Respondent was arrested in Ireland on 11 September 2021 following a Schengen Information System alert and brought before the courts. The identity of the Respondent was not disputed. The issuing judicial authority provided additional intelligence and police reports to confirm identity. Points of objection to surrender were filed by the Respondent, supported by affidavits from a French advocate appointed to represent him upon surrender.

The High Court requested further information from the issuing judicial authority and received responses, including details on detention conditions from the French Ministry of Justice.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the anti-terrorist public prosecutor qualifies as a "judicial authority" under Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and section 2(1) of the Act of 2003.
2. Whether surrender is prohibited under section 45 or section 37 of the Act of 2003 due to the absence or inadequacy of a right to retrial or appeal ("no fair retrial objection").
3. Whether surrender is prohibited under section 44 of the Act of 2003 on grounds of extraterritoriality of the offence ("extraterritoriality objection").
4. Whether the EAW is invalid for failing to properly identify the number and nature of offences ("failure to properly identify the offence objection").
5. Whether surrender is prohibited under section 37 of the Act of 2003 due to a real risk of imprisonment in conditions breaching Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR") and the Charter of Fundamental Rights ("prison conditions objection").
6. Whether surrender is prohibited under section 37 of the Act of 2003 due to a real risk of breach of rights arising from the Respondent's medical condition ("medical care objection").
7. Whether surrender is prohibited under section 37 of the Act of 2003 as a disproportionate interference with the Respondent's or his family's rights to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR ("family life objection").

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The anti-terrorist public prosecutor is not a judicial authority because the decision to issue the EAW lacks effective judicial protection, lacking a dual level of judicial scrutiny, partly due to the State's opt-out from the Criminal Legal Aid Directive.
• Surrender should be refused because the right to retrial or appeal guaranteed by the EAW will not be effectively afforded or would breach fair trial rights.
• The offence was committed outside France and thus surrender is prohibited under extraterritoriality rules.
• The EAW does not clearly specify the number and nature of offences, rendering it invalid.
• Surrender would expose the Respondent to real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment due to prison conditions in France.
• Surrender would expose the Respondent to real risk of breach of rights due to his medical condition.
• Surrender would disproportionately interfere with the Respondent's and his family's private and family life rights.

Applicant's Arguments

• The issuing judicial authority qualifies as a judicial authority because the EAW was issued for executing a sentence imposed by a court following a fair trial, thus satisfying the dual level of judicial protection.
• The Respondent has or will have access to effective remedies in France, including the right to seek annulment of procedural irregularities and a retrial.
• The offence was at least partly committed in France, satisfying the territoriality requirement.
• The EAW sufficiently identifies the single offence of participation in a terrorist criminal organisation under French law.
• There is no substantial ground to believe the Respondent faces a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the prison where he will be detained, based on detailed information about prison conditions and medical care.
• The Respondent's medical condition does not establish a real risk of rights violations.
• The Respondent has not discharged the heavy evidential burden to show that surrender would be a disproportionate interference with family life rights.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed analysis of each ground of objection raised by the Respondent, applying relevant EU and domestic law principles and case law.

On the issuing judicial authority objection, the court found that the anti-terrorist public prosecutor qualifies as a judicial authority under Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision and section 2(1) of the Act of 2003. This was because the EAW was issued for executing a custodial sentence imposed by a court following a fair trial, satisfying the dual level of protection of procedural and fundamental rights required by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) jurisprudence. The court rejected the Respondent's reliance on the Criminal Legal Aid Directive, noting the State's opt-out and that the Respondent had legal representation in France, with no evidence of prejudice.

Regarding the no fair retrial objection, the court accepted assurances from the issuing judicial authority that the Respondent would have the right to bring actions for annulment of procedural irregularities, request release, and seek retrial and appeal. The court found the objection to be unsupported by evidence.

The extraterritoriality objection failed because the offence was at least partly committed in France, satisfying the territoriality requirement under section 44 of the Act of 2003.

On the failure to properly identify the offence objection, the court found that the EAW clearly identified one offence of participation in a terrorist criminal organisation under French law, dispelling any ambiguity.

For the prison conditions objection, the court applied established principles emphasizing the presumption of mutual trust and the high threshold for refusal based on inhuman or degrading treatment. The court considered detailed information on conditions at the Villepinte detention centre, including personal cell space, hygiene, medical care, freedom of movement, and recent legal developments providing detainees with remedies to challenge detention conditions. The court concluded there were no substantial grounds to believe the Respondent faced a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

The medical care objection was rejected due to the absence of specific evidence and the assurances regarding medical care at Villepinte.

Regarding the family life objection, the court applied the stringent test for incompatibility with Article 8 rights, requiring cogent evidence of a truly exceptional case. The limited evidence presented did not meet this threshold.

Finally, the court confirmed that all necessary proofs under section 16(2) of the Act of 2003 were satisfied, including identity, provision of the EAW, the absence of prohibitions under sections 21A, 22, 23 or 24, and meeting the minimum gravity requirement.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to ORDER THE SURRENDER of the Respondent to the French Republic pursuant to section 16(2) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.

This decision directly effects the parties by authorizing the Respondent's surrender to France for the purpose of serving the outstanding custodial sentence. The court did not establish new precedent but applied existing legal principles and case law to the facts, reinforcing the standards for effective judicial protection, procedural safeguards, and the assessment of human rights objections in the context of European Arrest Warrants.