Supreme Court call for EU to rule on extradition issues
The Supreme Court wants the Court of Justice of the EU to determine legal issues with potentially serious implications for the treatment of extradition requests from Germany and Lithuania.
The issues concern whether or not public prosecutors in Germany, and the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania, are "judicial authorities" within the meaning of Article 6.1 of the EC Framework Decision governing extradition arrangements between EU member states.
The Framework Decision provides that European Arrest Warrants (EAWs), issued by requesting states for the purpose of extradition to another EU state, must be issued by judicial authorities.
In two interim rulings this week, the five judge Supreme Court said, as a result of issues raised in separate appeals by two men against orders for their extradition to Lithuania and Germany, it is unclear whether the relevant prosecutors are judicial authorities.
The answer as to whether they are appears to be a question of interpretation of EU law, Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geohegan said when delivering the rulings.
The Supreme Court wanted the Court of Justice to decide a number of legal issues in that regard and, because of the potential consequences for many other EAW's from Germany and Lithuania for person in custody, that court may decide to apply its priority or expedited procedures, she said.
The references are expected to be formally sent next week.
One of the interim rulings was given in an appeal by Vytautas Dunauskis, described as a Lithuanian citizen living in Ireland, whose extradition to Gemany was sought under an EAW issued in May 2016 by the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Regional Court of Lubeck, Germany, for a 1995 offence described as "murder, grievous bodily injury".
Mr Dunauskis, who is on bail, objected to surrender on grounds including the Lubeck Public Prosecutor (LPP) is not a judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6.1 of the Framework Decision 2002 and, as a result, the Irish European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
He relied on evidence from a qualified German lawyer that the LPP is not independent of the Minister for Justice and therefore not a judicial authority for the purposes of the Framework Decision.
The office of the LPP strongly disputed that claim and the Irish High Court and Court of Appeal both held the LPP is an issuing judicial authority.
In the interim ruling of Mr Dunauskis' appeal over those findings, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan said the Supreme Court is "uncertain" whether, on the evidence and information provided, the LPP meets either the test of independence or administers criminal justice in the sense required, under various CJEU decisions, to be considered a judicial authority.
The CJEU has said a judicial authority must be one independent of the executive, she noted.
The institutional structure of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Germany appears to be such the LPP is "institutionally subject ultimately, albeit indirectly, to a direction or instruction from the executive".
The second interim ruling was on an appeal by Thomas Lisauskas over an order for his surrender on foot of an EAW issued by the Prosecutor General's office in Lithuania concerning an armed robbery offence allegedly committed in 2012.
Mr Lisuaskas, who is also on bail, similarly argued the Prosecutor General is not a judicial authority.
Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan, in also directing a reference in his case, said, while it remains clear that to be a judicial authority a public prosecutor must have a role in the administration of justice, the extent and nature of the rule that satisfies this test is "more uncertain".
