Article 6 - Right to liberty and security
Key facts of the case:
The applicant is a Greek national who applied to the Cypriot courts seeking to cancel a European Arrest warrant (EAW) issued against him by the Nicosia District Court regarding criminal offences relating to false representations, securing goods with false representations, conspiracy to defraud, fraud, etc. The applicant based his application on four grounds:
The EAW was issued in excess of jurisdiction and in violation of national and international law provisions including article 5 of the ECHR, as well as in violation of article 6 of the EU charter.
The District Court had erred as regards the aim of the European Arrest Warrant because the sworn affidavit of the police stated clearly that the aim of the authorities was merely to facilitate police investigation, rather than prosecute him. The Attorney General ignored this and authorised the issue of the arrest warrant stating that its aim was to prosecute the applicant.
The District Court failed to check whether the principle of proportionality was complied with and the EAW does not provide a sufficiently precise justification.
The EAW was a product of concealment by the police of material facts which were known or reasonably known to them, as the police failed to inform the court that the applicant had put himself at the disposal of the police in order to facilitate the police investigation, by offering to give testimony through a teleconference, which would save money and time and was clearly in the interest of justice. The applicant claimed he was unable to travel to due to health reasons and because of the pandemic measures.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
Whether the EAW issued by the district court against the applicant should be annulled on the basis of the apparent fact that the police merely wanted to question him.
Outcome of the case:
The certiorari order is granted where there is a prima facie case of excess or lack of jurisdiction, an error of law apparent on the face of the record, bias or interest on the part of the persons making the decision, fraud or perjury in making the decision or a breach of the rules of natural justice. The Court found that the applicant established a prima facie case that justifies the issue of the order requested.
The Court granted the applicant permission to file a certiorari order for the cancellation of the EAW.
The Applicant is putting forward four main reasons to back his application. I summarize them as follows.
First, that the European Arrest Warrant of 4 August 2022 ("the European Arrest Warrant") - which appears to relate to 14 offences concerning roughly the criminal offences of making false representations, procuring goods by false representation, conspiracy to defraud, fraud in the sale or mortgage of property, fraudulent dealings in immovable property belonging to another, forgery, preparation of a false document, circulation of a false document, money laundering, conspiracy to commit a felony and/or a misdemeanour - was issued in excess of jurisdiction, having expired, in violation of Law 181(Ι)/2017 on the European search warrant in criminal matters, Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the European Investigation Order in Criminal Matters, the European Arrest Warrant and Surrender Procedures of Wanted Persons between Member States of the European Union Law 133(I)/2004, and Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant and Surrender Procedures between EU Member States and/or the intended purpose thereof. Αnd that it was based on a National Arrest Warrant of 4 February 2022 ("the National Arrest Warrant") which was allegedly issued in breach of Articles 3A, 5, 17-21 and 44 of Cap 155 and contrary to the requirements of Articles 11, 12, 35 of the Constitution and the corresponding Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Ο Αιτητής προτάσσει βασικώς τέσσερεις λόγους προς επιτυχία της Αίτησης. Τους συνοψίζω.
Πρώτο, ότι το Ευρωπαϊκό Ένταλμα Σύλληψης ημερομηνίας 4.8.22 («το Ευρωπαϊκό Ένταλμα Σύλληψης») - που φαίνεται να αφορά σε 14 αξιόποινες πράξεις σχετιζόμενες, αδρομερώς, προς ποινικά αδικήματα ψευδών παραστάσεων, εξασφάλισης αγαθών με ψευδείς παραστάσεις, συνωμοσία για καταδολίευση, απάτη κατά την πώληση ή υποθήκευση περιουσίας, δόλιες συναλλαγές σε ακίνητη περιουσία ανήκουσα σε άλλο, πλαστογραφία, καταρτισμό πλαστού εγγράφου, κυκλοφορία πλαστού εγγράφου, νομιμοποίηση εσόδων από παράνομες δραστηριότητες, συνωμοσία προς διάπραξη κακουργήματος ή και πλημμελήματος - εκδόθηκε καθ' υπέρβαση δικαιοδοσίας, αφού απέρρευσε κατά παράβαση του περί Ευρωπαϊκής Εντολής Έρευνας σε Ποινικές Υποθέσεις Ν.181(Ι)/2017, της Οδηγίας 2014/41/ΕΕ του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου της 3ης Απριλίου 2014, περί της ευρωπαϊκής εντολής έρευνας σε ποινικές υποθέσεις, του περί Ευρωπαϊκού Εντάλματος Σύλληψης και των Διαδικασιών Παράδοσης Εκζητουμένων Μεταξύ των Κρατών Μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης Νόμος 133(Ι)/2004, και της Απόφαση-πλαίσιο 2002/584/ΔΕΥ για το ευρωπαϊκό ένταλμα σύλληψης και τις διαδικασίες παράδοσης μεταξύ χωρών της ΕΕ και/ή του επιδιωκόμενου σκοπού αυτών, και πως στηρίχθηκε σε Εθνικό Ένταλμα Σύλληψης ημερομηνίας 4.2.22 («το Εθνικό Ένταλμα Σύλληψης») το οποίο, φερόμενα, εκδόθηκε κατά παράβαση των Άρθρων 3Α, 5, 17-21, και 44, του Κεφ. 155 και αντίστοιχα στις επιταγές των Άρθρων 11, 12, 35 του Συντάγματος και του αντίστοιχου Άρθρου 5 της Ευρωπαϊκής Σύμβασης των Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου και του Άρθρου 6 του Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
