Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
Poland had issued a European Arrest warrant for the applicant (A), who currently resided in Denmark, based on a criminal charge where he was sentenced to 3 years in prison by the Court of Appeal in Poland for theft, robbery and violence. Pursuant to the Danish extradition act section 35, read in conjunction with section 13 (3), the Court had to make a ruling on whether A should be extradited to Poland based on the arrest warrant.
A argued that it would be contrary to his rights to a fair trial pursuant to Article 47(2) in the Charter and Article 6 in the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite him to Poland. A firstly argued, that extradition should be denied on the ground that the verdict was not final, as A had submitted a request to bring the case before the Polish Supreme Court. Furthermore the claim was based onthe European Commission’s reasoned proposal of 20 December 2017 for the Council’s decision pursuant to Article 7 (1) of the Treaty on European Union, whereby it was established that there is a real risk that Poland is grossly violating the rule of law. In addition, A claimed that the judges in the pending case before the Supreme Court had been replaced without any explanation and that the prosecutor’s office should gather further information about the circumstances regarding the pending case. Furthermore, A argued that there was a possibility that the judges before the Court of Appeal had been politically appointed.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The legal question in the case was whether was whether it would violate A’s right to a fair trial under Article 47 (2) of the Charter and Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights to comply with the Arrest Warrant, based on, among others, European Commission’s finding that there is a real risk that Poland is grossly violating the rule of law. Thus, the High Court had to assess if there was a risk that extradition would violate A’s right to a fair trial.
Outcome of the case:
The Court concluded that A’s request for permission to bring the judgement delivered by the Polish Court of Appeal before the Polish Supreme Court, does not in itself provide grounds for refusing extradition. Furthermore, the Court stated that the request does not give rise to obtaining additional information about the pending trial. The Court stated that that the question whether A should be extradited for criminal proceeding to Poland should be based on the right to a fair trial under Article 47 (2) of the Charter and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the assessment on whether extraditing A would violate his rights to a fair trial, the court cited the Court of Justice of the EU’s cases C-354/20 and C-412/20 on the European Arrest Warrant. The cited cases concluded, , that the executing judicial authority that must decide on whether a person, who is subject to a European Arrest warrant, should be extradited, cannot simply rely on general information regarding the independence of the judicial power of the Member State which issued that warrant. Even if the general information testifies to systemic or general deficiencies that existed at the time of the issuance of the arrest warrant, the Court cannot just conclude that there are serious and justified reasons to assume that, in case of extradition, there is a real risk of violating the persons fundamental right to a fair trial. The deciding judicial body must carry out a concrete and precise assessment, whereby, among others, account must be taken of the personal situation of the person concerned, the nature of the offense in question and the factual circumstances under which the warrant was issued.
The Court held that it had been established, that there was a risk that Poland was grossly violating the rule of law, and thus, the Court had to make a concrete assessment on the specific circumstances regarding A. The Court noted that based on the available information A hadnot been persecuted based on ethnic, religious, political, or similar conditions or that he belongs to a discriminated minority. Against this background, consideration of the nature of his crimes and the information obtained from the Polish authorities about the adjudicating judges, the High Court concluded that there was no basis for assuming, that there has been a violation of A’s right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. Thus, the court finds that deportation does not violate the right to a fair trial entailed in the Charters Article 42 (2) or Article 6 in the Convention.
In cases regarding extradition based on a European Arrest Warrant, the Court cannot simply assume that the issuing State will violate the person’s right to a fair trial, based on the fact that it had been generally established that there is a real risk that the issuing State had been grossly violating the rule of law. The Court will have to make an overall assessment regarding the circumstances of the person concerned, the nature of the crime and the available information about the circumstances of the concrete case.
The Question is then whether extradition of A for criminal proceedings in Poland will be contrary to the right to a fair trial underArticle 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of The European Convention of Human Rights.
In the judgement of 17 December 2017,joint cases C-354/20 and C-412/20, on the European Arrest Warrant, the Court of Justice held, among other things, that when the executing judicial authority that must decide on the surrender of a person who is the subject of a European Arrest warrant has information which, as regards to the independence of the judicial power of the Member State which issued that warrant, testifies to systemic or general deficiencies that existed at the time of the issuance of the arrest warrant, or which occurred later, this authority can neither refuse to consider the court that issued this arrest warrant as the ‘issuing judicial authority’ nor assume that there are serious and well-founded reasons to assume that this person in case of surrender to the latter Member State runs a real risk of violating his fundamental right to a fair trial, without carrying out a concrete and precise assessment, whereby, among other things, account must be taken of the personal situation of the person concerned, the nature of the offense in question and the factual circumstances under which the warrant was issued. This has been maintained by, among many, in judgment of 22 February 2022,joined cases C-562/21 and C-563/21.
Especially on the basis of the European Commission's reasoned proposal of 20 December 2017 for the Council's decision pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, whereby it is established that there is a clear danger that Poland grossly violates the rule of law, the High Court finds, as also stated by the Attorney General, that there is information that, as far as the independence of the judiciary in Poland is concerned, testifies to systemic or general deficiencies that existed at the time of the issuance of the arrest warrant or which occurred later.
A has explained, among other things, that he is uneasy about having to serve time in a Polish prison. However, according to the available information, he is not being persecuted based on ethnic, religious, political, or similar grounds, nor is there any information that he belongs to a discriminated minority. Against this background and considering the nature of the crime for which he is to be extradited for execution in Poland, along with the opinions obtained from the Polish authorities about the adjudicating judges, the High Court finds from an overall assessment that there is no basis for assuming, that there has been a violation of A's right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal.
As other conditions under the Extradition Act for the extradition of A for execution of sentence in Poland have been met, the High Court then upholds the district court's ruling.
”Spørgsmålet er herefter, om udlevering af A til straffuldbyrdelse i Polen vil være i strid med retten til en retfærdig rettergang, jf. artikel 47, stk. 2, i Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæggende rettigheder og artikel 6 i Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention.
EU-domstolen har i dom af 17. december 2020 i de forenede sager C-354/20 og C-412/20 om den europæiske arrestordre udtalt bl.a., at når den fuldbyrdende judicielle myndighed, der skal træffe afgørelse om overgivelsen af en person, som er genstand for en europæisk arrestordre, råder over oplysninger, der for så vidt angår uafhængigheden af den dømmende magt i den medlemsstat, som har udstedt denne arrestordre, vidner om systemiske eller generelle mangler, der forelå på tidspunktet for udstedelsen af arrestordren, eller som er indtrådt senere, kan denne myndighed hverken nægte at anse den retsinstans, der har udstedt denne arrestordre, for »udstedende judicielle myndighed« eller lægge til grund, at der er alvorlige og godtgjorte grunde til at antage, at denne person i tilfælde af overgivelse til sidstnævnte medlemsstat løber en reel risiko for tilsidesættelse af sin grundlæggende ret til en retfærdig rettergang, uden at foretage en konkret og præcis vurdering, hvorved der bl.a. skal tages hensyn til den pågældende persons personlige situation, beskaffenheden af den pågældende lovovertrædelse og de faktiske omstændigheder, under hvilke udstedelsen af arrestordren har fundet sted. Dette er blevet opretholdt ved bl.a. dom af 22. februar 2022 i de forenede sager C-562/21 og C-563/21.
Navnlig på baggrund af Europa-Kommissionens begrundede forslag af 20. december 2017 til Rådets afgørelse i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 1, i traktaten om Den Europæiske Union, hvorved det fastslås, at der er en klar fare for, at Polen groft overtræder retsstatsprincippet, finder landsretten, som også anført af Rigsadvokaten, at der foreligger oplysninger, der for så vidt angår uafhængigheden af den dømmende magt i Polen vidner om systemiske eller generelle mangler, som forelå på tidspunktet for udstedelsen af arrestordren, eller som er indtrådt senere.
A har forklaret bl.a., at han er utryg ved at skulle afsone i et polsk fængsel, men han er efter de foreliggende oplysninger ikke forfulgt på baggrund af etniske, religiøse, politiske eller lignende forhold, ligesom der ikke foreligger oplysninger om, at han skulle tilhøre en diskrimineret minoritet. På denne baggrund og efter karakteren af den kriminalitet, som han ønskes udleveret til straffuldbyrdelse for i Polen, sammenholdt med de indhentede udtalelser fra de polske myndigheder om de deltagende dommere, finder landsretten ud fra en samlet vurdering, at der ikke er grundlag for at antage, at der er sket en krænkelse af A’s ret til en retfærdig rettergang ved en uafhængig og upartisk domstol.
Idet de øvrige betingelser efter udleveringsloven for udlevering af A til straffuldbyrdelse i Polen er opfyldt, stadfæster landsretten herefter byrettens kendelse.”