Denmark/ Supreme Court/ 97/2018

The Prosecution Service v. S
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
The Supreme Court
Decision date
06/02/2019
  • Denmark/ Supreme Court/ 97/2018

    Key facts of the case:

    S was in the custody of the Danish authorities and ordered extradited to Latvia for criminal proceedings, pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant. S protested against the extradition order, referring to his experiences in the prison conditions and other circumstances under an earlier pre-trial confinement in Latvia. S stated that the extradition should be denied pursuant to Section 10 h (2) of the Danish Act On Extradition (udleveringsloven) according to which extradition cannot take place if there is a risk that the person concerned will be subject to torture or other inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.. Additionally, S stated that extradition would be a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    Denmark has entered into the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (2002/584/JHA), and the Danish Extradition Act must therefore be read in combination with the relevant EU law including the Charter.

    Key legal question:

    The question before the Supreme Court was whether the extradition request could be granted or would violate the rights of S pursuant to both national and EU law and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. 

    Outcome of the case:

    In the case before the Supreme Court, detailed information was presented regarding the conditions including psychical space and medical help available in the detention facilities in Latvia where S could be expected to be detained. Having examined the information on the detention conditions in Latvia, the Supreme Court found that there was no real risk of persecution on the grounds of his origin or of exposure to torture or other inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights Article 3. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that extradition to Latvia could not be denied under Section 10 h of the Extradition Act in combination with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The court did not explicitly assess the detention conditions in Latvia but refers to the information given by the parties.


     [A1]Does the court explicitly assess the detention (and other) conditions in Latvia? Could you summarise findings?

     [A2]We have revised the text to better illustrate the court’s assessment of Latvia.

     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    “The case concerns extradition to criminal proceedings in Latvia pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant. The question is, if extradition of S shall be denied under Section 10 h of the Act on Extradition in combination with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights."

    “The extradition cannot take place, if there is a risk that the person in question, on the grounds of his origin, nationality, religious or political views or other grounds of political conditions, will be exposed to persecution aimed at his life or freedom or otherwise is of serious character, cf. Section 10 h, subsection 1 of The Act on Extradition. Furthermore, extradition shall not take place, if there is a risk that the person in question, after the extradition, will be exposed to torture or other inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, cf. Section 10 h subsection 2 of the Act. The provision is interpreted in accordance with the EU Charter Article. 4, cf. Article 19(2) and The European Convention on Human Rights Article 3.”

    “It follows from the judgement from the EU Court of 5th April 2019, in the joined cases C-404/15, Aranyosi v. Hungary, and C-659/15, Caldararu v. Romania, para. 88-89, that where the judicial authority of the executing Member State is in possession of evidence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of individuals detained in the issuing Member State, having regard to the standard of protection of fundamental rights guaranteed by EU law and, in particular, by Article 4 of the Charter, that judicial authority is bound to assess the existence of that risk when it is called upon to decide on the surrender to the authorities of the issuing Member State of the individual sought by a European arrest warrant. The consequence of the execution of such a warrant must not be that that individual suffers inhuman or degrading treatment. To that end, the executing judicial authority must, initially, rely on information that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated on the detention conditions prevailing in the issuing Member State and that demonstrates that there are deficiencies, which may be systemic or generalised, or which may affect certain groups of people, or which may affect certain places of detention. That information may be obtained from, inter alia, judgments of international courts, such as judgments of the ECtHR, judgments of courts of the issuing Member State, and also decisions, reports and other documents produced by bodies of the Council of Europe or under the aegis of the UN.”

     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Sagen angår udlevering til strafforfølgning i Letland i henhold til en europæisk arrestordre. Spørgsmålet er, om udlevering af S skal nægtes i medfør af udleveringslovens § 10 h sammenholdt med artikel 3 i Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention og artikel 4 i Den Europæiske Unions Charter om grundlæggende rettigheder.

    Udlevering må ikke finde sted, hvis der er fare for, at den pågældende efter udleveringen på grund af sin afstamning, sit tilhørsforhold til en bestemt befolkningsgruppe, sin religiøse eller politiske opfattelse eller i øvrigt på grund af politiske forhold vil blive udsat for forfølgelse, som retter sig mod dennes liv eller frihed eller i øvrigt er af alvorlig karakter, jf. udleveringslovens § 10 h, stk. 1. Udlevering må endvidere ikke finde sted, hvis der er fare for, at den pågældende efter udleveringen vil blive udsat for tortur eller anden umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling eller straf, jf. udleveringslovens § 10 h, stk. 2. Bestemmelsen skal fortolkes i overensstemmelse med EU-chartrets artikel 4, jf. artikel 19, stk. 2, og Menneskerettighedskonventionens artikel 3.

    Det følger af EU-Domstolens dom af 5. april 2016 i de forenede sager C-404/15, Aranyosi mod Ungarn, og C-659/15 PPU, Caldararu mod Rumænien, præmis 88-89, at den judicielle myndighed, såfremt den råder over oplysninger, der dokumenterer en reel risiko for umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling af frihedsberøvede personer i den udstedende medlemsstat, målt efter normen for beskyttelse af de grundlæggende rettigheder, der er givet ved EU-retten og navnlig ved chartrets artikel 4, skal vurdere, om denne risiko foreligger, når den træffer afgørelse om overgivelse af en person omfattet af en europæisk arrestordre til myndighederne i den udstedende medlemsstat, idet fuldbyrdelsen af en arrestordre ikke må føre til umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling af den pågældende. Ved denne vurdering skal den fuldbyrdende myndighed først og fremmest basere sig på objektive, pålidelige, præcise og behørigt ajourførte oplysninger om de forhold for frihedsberøvede, der hersker i den udstedende medlemsstat, og som påviser reelle mangler, der er systemiske eller generelle, eller som berører visse persongrupper eller visse centre for frihedsberøvede. Disse oplysninger kan bl.a. fremgå af internationale retsafgørelser, såsom Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols domme, den udstedende medlemsstats retsafgørelser samt afgørelser, rapporter og andre dokumenter, der udarbejdes af organerne i Europarådet eller af FN-organer.