Key facts of the case:
The appellant appeled the the Zagreb County Court in Zagreb decision (No. Kv-eun-32/14 of 10 April 2014) whereby his surrender to Germany for the criminal proceedings for group grand teft and serious bodily injury was allowed. The applicant did not speficy legal basis for his appeal, arguing that it was wrongfully determined that there was no reason to deny the surrender* and that his right to fair trial would be violated if surrendered to Germany. The Supreme Court held that decision was lawful: the County Court was not obliged to examine culpability under national law as the criminal act for which surrender was sought was on the list of crimes for which verification of double criminality was excluded. As regards the alleged risk to the right to fair trail, the Court held that this claim was not made probale by the fact that the appellant had already been tried in Germany and alleged deficiencies in the conduct of the police and assessment of evidence in another trial. The Court also stressed that Germany was bound by the Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Chapter VI of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. • It is not clear what the appellant contested from the Supreme Court’s decision, while the County Court decision and his appeal is not available.
Contrary to the allegations of the appeal, the first instance court correctly concluded that the claim of the person sought out in Germany that he would not have a fair trial is not substantiated or justified. The fact that the person has already been convicted in Germany does not suggest he will be denied of the right to a fair trial, as correctly pointed out by the first instance court. The objections regarding the German police work mode and the contestation of the quality of evidence, stated in the appeal, are related to another criminal proceedings and cannot constitute basis for a conclusion that the right to a fair trial would be at risk in the present case. The Federal Republic of Germany is a signatory to the Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and it is bound by Article 6 of that Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, and as a member of the European Union shall respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , in particular Chapter VI - Justice , as stated in the contested decision.
Protivno navodima žalbe, pravilno je prvostupanjski sud zaključio da tvrdnja tražene osobe kako u SR Njemačkoj neće imati pravično suđenje, nije potkrijepljena niti utemeljena. Naime, činjenica da je tražena osoba već ranije osuđivana u SR Njemačkoj ne upućuje na zaključak o uskrati prava na pravično suđenje, što pravilno ističe prvostupanjski sud. Prigovor na način rada njemačke policije i osporavanje kvalitete dokaza, koje tražena osoba iznosi u žalbi vezan je za neki drugi kazneni postupak i ne može biti osnova za zaključak da bi u konkretnom postupku bilo ugroženo pravo na pravično suđenje. SR Njemačka je potpisnica Konvencije o zaštiti ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda te ju obvezuje članak 6. te Konvencije koji jamči pravo na pošteno suđenje, a kao članicu Europske unije dužna je poštovati i Povelju o temeljnim pravima Europske unije, posebno poglavlje VI – Pravosuđe, kako je to navedeno i u pobijanom rješenju.