Denmark / Supreme Court / Case No. 7/2024

A. v the Danish public prosecutor’s office
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Type
Decision
Decision date
13/08/2024
  • Denmark / Supreme Court / Case No. 7/2024

    Key facts of the case:

    For criminal proceedings, the Moldovan authorities requested the Danish authorities to extradite a Moldovan/Romanian citizen (dual citizenship), who had resided in Denmark since a criminal case against him was initiated. A national Moldovan district court had sentenced the individual to 14 years in prison for the crime of intentional violence resulting in the death of a person and therefore requested Denmark for an extradition. At the request of the public prosecutor office, the Danish national courts must make a ruling on extradition pursuant to the Danish Extradition Act (Udleveringsloven) section 35 (1).

    The defendant argued before the courts, that there was a real risk he would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if extradited, due to the Moldovan prison conditions. This claim was based on various reports from Human Right Organisations and practice from the European Court of Human Rights. According to the individual, extradition therefore would be in violation with Section 6 (2) of the Danish Extradition Act, stating that extradition contrary to the prohibition against degrading or inhuman treatment set out in the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 3, and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 4, read in conjunction with Article 19 (2), is rendered illegal.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The legal question in the case is whether Denmark, pursuant to section 6(2) of the Danish Extradition Act, should refrain from extraditing the Moldovan/Romanian Citizen to criminal proceedings in Moldova, based on the assumption that there is a real risk that the Citizen will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Denmark’s obligations under the European Convention on Humans Rights, Article 3, and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 4, read in conjunction with Article 19. 

    Outcome of the case: 

    The Supreme Court referred to the Court of Appeal’s (the High Court) reasoning and concluded that, in the case of extradition, there was no ground for establishing a real risk that the individual would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 4 of the Charter or Article 6 of the Convention. This conclusion was based on information and diplomatic guarantees provided by the Moldovan Ministry of Justice regarding the general prison conditions in Moldova and of which specific conditions that would apply to the individual. The High Court’s verdict included an assessment on whether the specific condition, that would apply to the individual during his sentence, as laid out in the guarantees, complied with Article 4, read in conjunction with . Article 19 (2) of the Charter and the Convention. The Court concluded the specific prison conditions, under which the individual would have to serve the sentence, complied with the prohibition on submitting and individual to inhuman or degrading treatment and furthermore stated that the guarantees/information provided by the receiving country must form the basis for the assessment on whether a person can be extradited. 

    The Supreme court agreed with this reasoning and referred to the assessment of the High Courts on the content of the guarantees. The Supreme Court furthermore stated that there were no concrete reasons to doubt the credibility of the Moldovan authority’s guarantee of the prison conditions that can concretely be expected for the individual, and thus found no violation of Article 4, read in conjunction with Article 19 (2).   

    Thus, the implication of the judgement is that even though well documented concerns has been raised about the receiving country’s compliance with the prohibition entailed in the Charter’s Article 4, read in conjunction with Article 19 (2), diplomatic guarantees as to the specific conditions that will apply to the individual, can be sufficient to ensure Charter compliance if there is no specific reason to disregard the guarantees as untrustworthy.  

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    The case concerns the extradition of T for criminal prosecution in Moldova in accordance with the Moldovan authorities’ request. The question before the Supreme Court is whether extradition should be refused pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Extradition Act on the grounds that the prison conditions and the conditions of imprisonment to which T might be subjected to, will be of inhuman or degrading nature, such that extradition would entail a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union in accordance with Article 19 (2) 

    The Moldovan authorities have answered the Attorney General's inquiry about the prison conditions for T if he is extradited. For the reasons given by the High Court, the Supreme Court agrees that there is no basis for establishing that there is a real risk that T will be exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Denmark's international obligations if he is extradited to Moldova. The Supreme Court hereby notes that, taking into account what the prosecution has stated, there is no basis for doubting the credibility of the Moldovan authorities' statement about the prison conditions that can concretely be expected for T, if the extradition request is granted. There is then no basis for refusing extradition pursuant to Section 6, subsection of the Extradition Act. 2, and the Supreme Court therefore upholds the High Court's order.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Sagen angår udlevering af T til strafforfølning i Moldova i henhold til de moldoviske myndigheders anmodning herom. Spørgsmålet er for Højesteret, om udlevering skal nægtes i medfør af udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, med den begrundelse, at fængselsforholdene og afsoningsvilkårene, som T i givet fald vil blive undergivet, vil være af umenneskelig eller nedværdigende karakter, sådan at udlevering vil indebære en overtrædelse af Den Europæiske - 28 - Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3 og af den Europæiske Unions Charter om grundlæggende rettigheder artikel 4, jf. artikel 19, stk. 2. 

    De moldoviske myndigheder har besvaret rigsadvokatens forespørgsel om fængselsforholdene for T, hvis han udleveres. Af de grunde, som landsretten har anført, tiltræder Højesteret, at der ikke er grundlag for at fastslå, at der er reel risiko for, at T vil blive udsat for umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling i strid med Danmarks internationale forpligtelser, hvis han udleveres til Moldova. Højesteret bemærker herved, at der under hensyn til det, som anklagemyndigheden har anført, ikke er grundlag for at betvivle troværdigheden af de moldoviske myndigheders erklæring om de fængselsforhold, som konkret kan forventes for T, hvis udleveringsanmodningen tages til følge. Der er herefter ikke grundlag for at nægte udlevering i medfør af udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, og Højesteret stadfæster derfor landsrettens kendelse.