Key facts of the case:
The applicant claimed that the decision of the County Court in Zagreb (KV-eun-2/2014 of 8 January 2014), and the decision of the Supreme Court (Kž-eun-2/14-5 of 17 January 2014) on his surrender to German authorities for prosecution for murder, pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant (No: 3BJs 25/05-2(4) of 28 September 2005), violated his constitutional and human rights. In particular, he claimed that the decisions were unlawful, as he claimed that his prosecution was time barred in Croatia, which was an obligatory reason to deny surrender, in light of which his arrest in Germany would also be unlawful. He also claimed that he would not have a fair trial in Germany (basing his claim on the alleged unfairness of the proceedings against another Croatian citizen in Germany). Finally, he submitted that domestic courts decisions were incompatible with the European practice of implementing the Framework Decision on European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedure between the Member States, whereby he was discriminated against in comparison to other European citizens in similar situations. He claimed that according to the practice of the CJEU, exclusion of verification of double criminality for listed offences does not extend to questions of the statute of limitation.
Outcome of the case:
Domestic courts, however, held that the fact that the act in question was on the list of offences for which double criminality is not checked precluded examination of the statute of limitations, which anyhow, according to their application of relevant domestic laws, has not expired, contrary to what the applicant claimed. They also held that the applicant did not make it probable that the proceedings in Germany would be unfair, as his claims concerned assessment of evidence in the proceedings against another person.
Referring to §§ 53. - 62. of the independent attorney Sharpston’s opinion of 18 October 2012 in the EU Court case (Grand Chamber) C 396/11 - Radu, the Constitutional Court accepts that the restraint and forceful surrender of a requested person, which is inherent to the European arrest warrant, constitute interference with a person’s right to liberty and thus must be in accordance with Article 5 paragraph 1 subparagraph f) of the Convention and Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2010/C 83/02, published in the Official Journal of the European Union C 83/389 of 30 March 2010 and comply with the requirements of necessity and proportionality.
Upućujući na §§ 53. - 62. mišljenja nezavisne odvjetnice Sharpston od 18. listopada 2012. u predmetu Suda EU (velikog vijeća) C 396/11 - Radu, Ustavni sud prihvaća da oduzimanje slobode i prisilna predaja tražene osobe, koji su inherentni europskom uhidbenom nalogu, konstituiraju miješanje u pravo osobe na slobodu i stoga moraju biti u skladu s člankom 5. stavkom 1. točkom f) Konvencije i člankom 6. Povelje o temeljnim pravima Europske unije (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2010/C 83/02), koja je objavljena u Službenom listu Europske unije C 83/389 od 30. ožujka 2010., te zadovoljavati zahtjeve nužnosti i razmjernosti.