Sweden / Supreme Court / Case Ö 7821-21

Swedish Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalvården) v. BK
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
22/03/2022
  • Sweden / Supreme Court / Case Ö 7821-21

    Key facts of the case:

    Bremen’s public prosecutor's office requested the Swedish Prison and Probation Service (SPPS) to recognise and enforce a court decision regarding sentence commutation. The decision concerned a Swedish citizen B.K. and referred to the conversion of previous sentences to a prison sentence of one year and five months. The decision was reached through a written procedure. B.K. was given the opportunity to give his opinion. His defence counsel reviewed the case. No opinion from B.K. was received by the German court.  

    The SPPS decided that the German court decision should be recognized and enforced in Sweden, where B.K. was imprisoned. B.K. appealed against the SPPS’s decision. The District Court dismissed the appeal. After B.K. appealed against this decision, the Court of Appeal annulled the decision of the SPPS, holding that the German court’s decision should not be recognized and enforced in Sweden. The Supreme Court later reversed the Court of Appeal's decision and upheld the District Court's decision to enforce B.K.’s custodial sentence in Sweden. 

    The case concerns the interpretation of the Swedish Act on mutual recognition and enforcement of custodial sentences within the European Union. This Act is based on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union. The framework decision must in turn be applied with respect for the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, especially in matters concerning article 47. 

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The case concerns the application of the provisions on mutual recognition and enforcement of custodial sentences within the EU in respect of a decision reached through a written procedure.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Supreme Court held that the grounds for refusal specified in Chapter 3, Section 4, point 7 of the Act on mutual recognition and enforcement of custodial sentences within the European Union is not applicable to a foreign judgment reached by way of a written procedure. The Supreme Court thereby reversed the Court of Appeal's decision and upheld the District Court's decision to enforce B.K.’s custodial sentence in Sweden.  

    According to the Supreme Court, the principle of mutual recognition of judgments is a cornerstone of judicial cooperation within the EU. According to the Swedish Act, the starting point for a foreign custodial sentence being transferred from another member state is clear: recognition and enforcement shall take place unless explicit obstacles are prescribed such as the accused’s connection to Sweden. There is no ground for refusal in the Swedish Act that explicitly deals with the situation where a judgment has been reached by way of a written procedure. Chapter 3, Section 4, point 7 of the Swedish Act states that hearings at which the convicted person was not personally present shall not be enforced. The question that arose in this case was whether this ground for refusal must be understood so that it also covers judgments that have been reached by way of a written procedure. 

    Both the Swedish Act and the framework decision describe a situation where the judgment that is subject to assessment has been reached after a hearing. In several rulings, the Court of Justice of the European Union has assessed the word “hearing”. The rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union do not provide a basis for a conclusion that the ground for refusal regarding hearings where the convicted person has not been personally present also encompasses judgments reached by way of a written procedure. The Supreme Court added that the expression “hearing” in normal parlance may be considered to refer to a deliberation, discussion or handling with oral elements. Linguistically, it is less appropriate to let the expression include a procedure only conducted by way of writing. This led to the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the grounds for refusal specified in the Swedish Act cannot be considered applicable to a foreign judgment reached by way of a written procedure.  

    However, the Supreme Court added a reservation that the national procedure that preceded a judgment forming the basis of a request for recognition and enforcement must have been conducted with respect for the fundamental rights and principles reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the Supreme Court, no circumstance in the present case indicated that B.K.'s rights under the Charter had been violated, and the Court could consequently enforce B.K.’s custodial sentence in Sweden.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    8. The Act (2015:96) on mutual recognition and enforcement of custodial sentences within the European Union (the European Enforcement Act) is based on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 (see Chapter 1 Section 1 and government bill 2014/15:29 p. 36). According to the Framework Decision’s consideration clause, the principle of mutual recognition of judgments is a cornerstone of judicial cooperation within the EU (see consideration clause 1, 2 and 5). A starting point is that the framework decision must be applied with respect for the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, especially in matters of the administration of justice (cf. consideration clause 13). 

    9. It follows from Article 47 of the Charter that everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time. The Charter relates here to Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

    ...

    28. However, the reservation needs to be made with respect to the national procedure that preceded a judgment that forms the basis of a request for recognition and enforcement that it must have been conducted with respect for the fundamental rights and principles reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (see p. 8 and 9). However, concrete circumstances should exist in order to establish that the procedure was conducted in violation of the provisions in the Charter in order for it to justify a refusal to recognize and enforce a criminal judgement from another Member State (cf. "The Romanian arrest warrant" NJA 2020 p. 430 p. 15).

    ...

    32. What the German public prosecutor's office noted must be accepted. No circumstance came to light that indicates that B.K.'s rights under the Charter had been violated (see p. 28). 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    8. Lagen (2015:96) om erkännande och verkställighet av frihetsberövande påföljder inom Europeiska unionen (europeiska verkställighetslagen) bygger på genomförandet av rambeslutet 2008/909/RIF som antagits av den Europeiska unionens råd den 27 november 2008 (se 1 kap. 1 § och prop. 2014/15:29 s. 36). Enligt rambeslutets beaktandesatser utgör principen om ömsesidigt erkännande av domar en hörnsten i det rättsliga samarbetet inom EU (se beaktandesatserna 1, 2 och 5). En utgångspunkt är att rambeslutet ska tillämpas med respekt för Europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna, särskilt i fråga om rättskipning (jfr beaktandesatsen 13).  

    9. Av artikel 47 i stadgan följer att var och en har rätt att inom skälig tid få sin sak prövad i en rättvis och offentlig rättegång. Stadgan anknyter här till artikel 6.1 i Europakonventionen. 

    ...

    28. Den reservationen behöver dock göras att det nationella förfarande som har föregått en dom som ligger till grund för en begäran om erkännande och verkställighet måste ha genomförts med respekt för de grundläggande rättigheter och principer som återspeglas i Europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna (se p. 8 och 9). Det bör emellertid krävas konkreta omständigheter som gör att det kan konstateras att förfarandet har skett i strid med stadgans bestämmelser för att detta ska motivera en vägran att erkänna och verkställa ett straffrättsligt avgörande från en annan medlemsstat (jfr ”Den rumänska arresteringsordern” NJA 2020 s. 430 p. 15). 

    ...

    32. Vad den tyska åklagarmyndigheten har uppgett ska godtas. Det har inte framkommit någon omständighet som tyder på att BKs rättigheter enligt stadgan har åsidosatts (se p. 28).