Cyprus / District Court of Paphos / Extradition Application No. 3/21

Key facts of the case:

The defendants are facing extradition proceedings following a request by the U.S. Government for their extradition under the US-Cyprus Extradition Treaty. In the course of the trial, the defendants asked for a referral to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling under article 267 of the TFEU on: 

• Whether article 8(3) of the national law transposing article 3(2) of the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America L.181 of 19/07/2003 (hereinafter “the EU-US Agreement”) complies with the aims of the EU-US Agreement. Article 8(3) of the national law provides that the extradition request must be supported by copies of the arrest warrant and of the charges, a statement of facts with a summary of the testimonies of witnesses, revealing the reasons for which it is reasonably believed that the wanted person has committed an offence. Article 8(3) expressly states that there is no need to send the sworn statements or the testimonies themselves;

• Whether Article 8(3) of the national law is complaint with the right to an effective remedy and the proportionality principle under Charter Articles 47 and 52; 

• Whether Article 6 of the TEU and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter apply in relation to the execution by member states of the EU-US Agreement and in relation to the documents required under Article 3(2) of the EU-US Agreement.  

Key legal question raised by the Court:

The defendants argued that Article 8(3) of the national law, which restricts the documents required to be issued to a summary report of the testimony, even excluding the obligation to send affidavits or the testimony of witnesses, does not appear in the text of the EU-US Agreement. The CJEU must therefore provide guidance on its compatibility with Union law. 

Outcome of the case:

The District Court rejected the request for referral to the CJEU, on the ground that the CJEU is competent to decide on the interpretation of Union law and not on national law. The Court stated that a prerequisite for referring a question to the CJEU is that the Union law provision must be ambiguous and at the same time significant and necessary for the resolution of the case pending before the national court.  It is for the competent court to decide whether a Union law provision is ambiguous and should be the subject of a referral to the CJEU, and to exercise its discretion against the referral to the CJEU. The national court found that it is not empowered to review the findings of the issuing court or to interfere with the exercise of its discretion, provided that it has acted within the limits of its jurisdiction and within the limits of the law. The legislation governing the extradition of fugitives is based on trust and reciprocity, necessary to achieve the wider objective of combating international crime.