Poland / Appellate Court / II AKz 160/17 Case of O.T.

Key facts of the case:

The applicant O.T. was found guilty of a crime of robbery and sentenced by the court in the United Kingdom. The Regional Court in Poland found it admissible to execute a part of O.T’s sentence in Poland. O.T. appealed against this decision and stated that transferring him back to Poland would violate his right to privacy and family life. Prior to the commission of the crime, O.T. lived in the United Kingdom and had a son there. O.T. did not agree to being transferred either.

O.T. appealed against this decision to the Appellate Court.

Outcome of the case:

The Court dismissed O.T’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of the first instance. The Court did not find a violation of the right to private and family life in this particular case. Also, the Court stated that the applicant did not prove whether he actually has a family in the United Kingdom. The Court analyses Article 19 point 2 of the Charter in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The court stated that these two articles are similar in the aspect in which they prohibit the expulsion of a foreigner to the country in which they may face the risk of death penalty, torture or any other inhuman or degrading treatment. The court pointed that the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence has evolved in the field of recognizing the provision of the Convention in cases related to trans-boarder criminal proceedings. The Court, however, pointed that so far the ECtHR has not issued a decision in which Article 8 would be used in the case concerning criminal trans-boarder decisions.

 

Paragraphs referring to EU Charter: 

Article 19 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights has to be noted here as well. This Article states that no one may  be  removed, expelled or extradited to a state where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This standard is similar to the standards set by the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECtHR’s jurisprudence.

It has been already stated that the ECtHR’s jurisprudence concerning the Convention’s guarantees in criminal proceedings evolved from the rejection of these guarantees in criminal proceedings, especially in extradition proceedings, to further acknowledging that the provisions of the European Convention should also be binding in other proceedings.

So far, however, ECtHR has not indicated that the guarantee set in Article 8 of the Convention should also be applicable in trans-boarder proceedings in criminal proceedings […].

Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language): 

Należy tu także zwrócić uwagę na art. 19 ust. 2 Karty Praw Podstawowych Unii Europejskiej. Przepis ten, stanowiąc, że nikt nie może być usunięty z terytorium państwa, wydalony lub wydany w drodze ekstradycji do państwa, w którym istnieje poważne ryzyko, iż może być poddany karze śmierci, torturom lub innemu nieludzkiemu lub poniżającemu traktowaniu albo karaniu, w analizowanym zakresie przewiduje standard ochronny zbieżny z tym, który wyznacza EKPC w brzmieniu nadanym przez orzecznictwo strasburskie.

Powyżej podkreślono już, że orzecznictwo trybunału strasburskiego dotyczące stosowania gwarancji konwencyjnych w postępowaniach międzynarodowych w sprawach karnych ewoluowało od odrzucenia myśli, iżby gwarancje te wiązały w karnych postępowaniach transgranicznych, w tym w szczególności w postępowaniu ekstradycyjnym do coraz szerszego uznawania, że przepisy zawarte w EKPC wiążą również w takich postępowaniach.

Jednak, jak dotąd, trybunał strasburski nie wskazał, iżby gwarancja wynikająca z art. 8 EKPC znajdowała zastosowanie w postępowaniu transgranicznym w sprawach karnych […].

Language: 
Polish
Deciding body (original language): 
Sąd Apelacyjny w Krakowie
Language: 
Polish