Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Key facts of the case:
The Malta Magistrates Court of Malta decided to extradite J.S., the applicant, based on a European arrest warrant issued by Italian judicial authorities. The applicant previously submitted an urgent application asking the Court to suspend the sentence. The applicant’s submission was based on a serious preoccupation that his extradition could result in a violation of Article 4 of the Charter, due to the situation of overcrowding in Italian prisons. In support of this claim he cited several judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. According to the applicant, the Magistrates Court had to obtain a guarantee from the Italian State that, in the event of extradition, the applicant would not suffer inhuman or degrading treatment. The Magistrates Court dismissed the applicant’s request. The applicant appealed the extradition decision before the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
Does a reasonable suspicion of a possible violation of Article 4 of the Charter justify a restriction of the duty to execute a European Arrest Warrant?
Outcome of the case:
The Court acknowledged that the objective of the European arrest warrant had been to abolish extradition and replace it with a simplified system of surrender, based on a high level of trust between member states. Maltese judges therefore have a duty to execute European arrest warrants, and exceptions to this general rule are limited.
However, the Court considered that the European Law on the execution of European arrest warrants is a living instrument, which is still evolving and developing. the Court cited the “Aranyosi and Căldăraru” joint cases, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) opened the door to the so-called “fundamental rights defence”. This principle provides that, according to Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Member States are required to respect the Charter when implementing European Union Law. The CJEU thus established that national judicial authorities might decline to execute a European arrest warrant after performing a two-step test, which consists of establishing if:
there are systematic and generalised deficiencies in the general conditions of detention in the Member State which issued the European arrest warrant;
there is sufficient ground to believe that the specific person subjected to the European arrest warrant will be at risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Therefore, the Maltese Court of Criminal Appeal noted that reasonable suspicion of a possible violation of Article 4 of the Charter had justified a restriction of the principles of judicial cooperation and mutual trust between Member States. Considering the worrying reports about conditions of detention in Italy, the applicant’s request for guarantees from the Italian State was thus valid.
The Court proceeded to request and obtain a statement from the Italian State. The Italian judicial authorities officially provided a general guarantee that conditions of detention in Italy are in compliance with Article 3 of European Convention of Human Rights. The Italian State went beyond the general guarantee, and undertook specific commitments that the applicant, if surrendered, would not risk being exposed to any inhuman or degrading treatment pursuant to Article 4 of the Charter and that he would be afforded a minimum of three-square metres of personal space, adequate sanitary conditions, etc.
The Court considered itself satisfied with the aforementioned guarantees. Therefore, after having granted the appellant’s request for an official statement by Italian authorities, the Court dismissed the rest of the grievances put forward by the applicant, and confirmed the extradition decision.
128. In Aranyosi and Cÿldÿraru the Court emphasized the fact that Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires that the Member States respect this Charter when implementing European Law. This includes Article 4 on the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, which has been interpreted as an absolute fundamental right; and the Court established a double test that the judicial authorities who are executing the European arrest warrant must observe:
(a) by considering evidence on the question of the deficiencies in the general conditions of detention in the member state that is issuing the European arrest warrant; as well as:
(b) the real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment that the requested person may suffer in the event that the extradition to the requesting state is accepted;
(c) and if after consultation with the judicial authorities of the requesting State it does not result that the risk of violation of human rights can be overcome within a reasonable time, the judicial authorities of the referring state will have to decide on whether the surrender procedure should be postponed.
129. In the case of Dorobantu, the CJEU went into further detail regarding the minimum conditions that need to be provided for considering the detention conditions in line with Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Court held that Article 1(3) of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in conjunction with Article 4 of the Charter, should be interpreted as follows: should a referring Member State have information that is objective, reliable, specific and up-to-date that shows that there are systemic or generalized deficiencies in detention conditions in the requesting Member State, it must take into account all the relevant aspects of the conditions in the prison in which the person concerned is likely to be detained (e.g. the personal space available to each detainee, sanitary conditions, freedom of movement in prison). However, this assessment should not be limited to the review of obvious inadequacies. Instead, the referring Member state must request the necessary information from the issuing Member state, and, in the absence of any deficiencies in the conditions of detention, must rely on the assurances given by the relevant issuing judicial authority (para 63).
…
131. In addition, due to the lack of minimum standards regarding personal space for each detainee according to European Union law, the Court relied on the interpretation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights. This is justified by the Court of Justice of the European Union, since Article 4 of the Charter corresponds to the meaning and scope given to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Relying on the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the point for the calculation of the available space. These parameters include: the areas occupied by sanitary facilities should not be taken into account, but should include spaces occupied by furniture. Additionally, there should also be room for the detainee to move freely, as the European Court of Human Rights maintained in Muršiÿ vs. Croatia.
134. The Court cites the Melloni case, in which the person detained by virtue of a European arrest warrant is only subject to compliance with the minimum standards of detention conditions related to Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and not with those of the national law of the executing Member State, as otherwise the principles of trust and mutual recognition will be weakened.
136. Finally, factors such as the effectiveness of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and the principles of trust and mutual recognition will take second place in cases where the executing judicial authorities have proof of substantial reasons to suggest that - after the surrender of the person to the issuing Member State - the requested person will face a real risk of violation of human rights; and the Court of Justice of the European Union reiterated that the violation of Article 4 of the Charter is a clear justification for pausing the execution of the warrant on the basis of trust and mutual recognition (par. 84).
147. This does not exclude that, as the Court of Justice already noted in their opinion on the accession of the Union to the European Convention for Human Rights (Opinion of 18 April 2014, Avis 2/13: see Point 191), "in exceptional circumstances" the principles of mutual recognition and trust between Member States may be subject to limitations due to the need to ensure the protection of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which is also expressly accounted for in Article 1(3) of the Framework Decision. This is the case of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and punishments, which are considered absolute by Articles 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This shows that there is a guarantee that does not render "mutual trust" to be "blind trust".
...
152. This is a guarantee of a general nature as Italy, a Member State of the European Union, is expected to comply with the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As noted by the defendant, there were several cases made against the Italian State due to the conditions of detention, in particular regarding the "overcrowding" problem of Italian prisons. There are also several cases that have looked into this alleged violation, with several of them discovering a violation. But the fact that these cases were raised does not mean that Italy has not made progress in its penitentiary field. In fact, the CPT report published in 2020 shows the progress of the Italian State in the field of its penitentiary structures. It was found that the "overcrowding" issue still persists and thus this general guarantee would have been irrelevant to this case.
128. F’Aranyosi u Căldăraru dik il-Qorti saħqet fuq il-fatt li l-artikolu 51(1) tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea jeħtieġ li l-istati Membri jirrispettaw din il-Karta meta jimplimentaw id-Dritt Ewropew, inkluż l-artikolu 4 dwar il-projbizzjoni ta’ trattament jew piena inumana u degredanti, li ġie interpretat bħala jedd fundamentali assolut; u li dik il-Qorti stabbiliet test dupliċi li l-Awtoritajiet Ġudizzjarji li jkunu qegħdin jeżegwixxu l-mandat tal-arrest Ewropew iridu josservaw:
(a) billi jikkunsidraw evidenza dwar il-kwistjoni tan-nuqqasijiet jew defiċjenzi fil-kondizzjonijiet ġenerali tad-detenzjoni fl-istat membru li jkun qiegħed joħroġ il-mandat t’arrest Ewropew; kif ukoll
(b) ir-riskju reali ta’ trattament inuman jew degradanti li l-persuna rikjesta tista ssofri fil-każ li t-talba għat-treġġiegħ tagħha lejn l-istat rikjedent tiġi milqugħa;
(c) u jekk wara konsultazzjoni mal-Awtoritajiet Ġudizzjarji tal-Istat rikjedent ma jirriżultax li r-riskju ta’ vjolazzjoni tal-jeddijiet tal-bniedem ikunu jistgħu jiġu megħluba fi żmien raġonevoli, l-Awtoritajiet Ġudizzjarji tal-istat Rikjest ikunu mbagħad iridu jieħdu deċiżjoni dwar jekk il-proċedura ta’ ċediment għandhiex tiġi postposta.
129. Fil-każ Dorobantu il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea daħlet f’iżjed dettall dwar x’tip ta’ kundizzjonijiet minimi għandhom jiġu provduti biex detenzjoni tkun tista’ titqies bħala li tissodisfa t-test tal-artikolu 4 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem tal-Unjoni Ewropea u l-artikolu 3 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem. Fi ftit kliem, il-Qorti iddeċiediet li l-Artikolu 1(3) tad-Deċiżjoni Kwadru 2002/584/JHA moqri flimkien mal-Artikolu 4 tal-Karta, għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li meta l-Istat Membru ta’ eżekuzzjoni jkollu informazzjoni li tkun oġġettiva, affidabbli, speċifika u aġġornata li turi li hemm nuqqasijiet sistemiċi jew ġeneralizzati fil-kundizzjonijiet tad-detenzjoni fl-Istat Membru emittenti, għandha tqis l-aspetti fiżiċi rilevanti kollha tal-kundizzjonijiet fil-ħabs li fih il-persuna kkonċernata x’aktarx tkun detenuta (eż. l-ispazju personali disponibbli għal kull detenut, kundizzjonijiet sanitarji, libertà ta’ moviment fil-ħabs). Madankollu, din il-valutazzjoni m'għandhiex tkun limitata għar-reviżjoni ta' insuffiċjenzi ovvji. Minflok, l-Istat Membru ta’ eżekuzzjoni għandu jitlob mingħand l-Istat Membru emittenti l-informazzjoni meħtieġa, u, fin-nuqqas ta’ xi nuqqasijiet fil-kundizzjonijiet tad-detenzjoni, għandu joqgħod fuq l-assigurazzjonijiet mogħtija mill-awtorità ġudizzjarja emittenti (par. 63).
131. Barra minn hekk, minħabba n-nuqqas ta’ standards minimi rigward l-ispazju personali għal kull detenut skont il-liġi tal-Unjoni Ewropea, il-Qorti bbażat ruħha fuq l-interpretazzjoni tal-Artikolu 3 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem mill-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem. Dan huwa ġġustifikat mill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea peress li l-Artikolu 4 tal-Karta jikkorrispondi, essenzjalment, għat-tifsira u l-portata mogħtija lill-Artikolu 3 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem. Filwaqt li bbażat ruħha fuq l-interpretazzjoni tal-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea tiċċara l-punt li għall-kalkolu tal-ispazju disponibbli, iż-żoni okkupati minn faċilitajiet sanitarji m’għandhomx jitqiesu, iżda għandhom jinkludu spazji okkupati minn għamara. Madankollu, għandu jkun hemm spazju biex id-detenut jiċċaqlaq b'mod normali, kif sostniet il- Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem f' Muršić vs. Croatia.
134. Il-Qorti tiċċita l-każ Melloni, fis-sens li l-persuna detenuta bis-saħħa ta’ mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew hija suġġetta biss għall-konformità mal-istandards minimi ta’ kundizzjonijiet ta’ detenzjoni li jirriżultaw mill-Artikolu 4 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem tal-Unjoni Ewropea u l-Artikolu 3 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem, u mhux ma’ dawk li jirriżultaw mil-liġi nazzjonali tal-Istat Membru ta’ eżekuzzjoni għaliex altrimenti l-prinċipji ta’ fiduċja u rikonoxximent reċiproċi jiddgħajfu.
136. Fl-aħħar nett, fatturi bħall-effikaċja tal-kooperazzjoni ġudizzjarja fi kwistjonijiet kriminali u l-prinċipji ta’ fiduċja u rikonoxximent reċiproku jkollhom ibaxxu rashom fil-każ fejn l-Awtoritajiet Ġudizzjarji ta’ eżekuzzjoni jkollhom prova ta’ raġunijiet sostanzjali li jissuġġerixxu li – wara l-konsenja tal-persuna lill-Istat Membru emittenti – il-persuna rikjesta tkun se tiffaċċja riskju reali ta’ ksur ta’ jeddijiet tal-bniedem; u dan peress li l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea tenniet li l-ksur tal-Artikolu 4 tal-Karta huwa ġustifikazzjoni ċara għar-restrizzjoni tal-applikazzjoni tal-prinċipji ta’ fiduċja u rikonoxximent reċiproċi (par. 84).
147. Madankollu, dan ma jeskludix li, kif diġà sostniet il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fl-opinjoni dwar l-adeżjoni tal-Unjoni mal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea għad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem (Opinjoni tat-18 ta’ April 2014, Avis 2/13: ara Punt 191) li "f'ċirkostanzi eċċezzjonali" il-prinċipji ta' rikonoxximent reċiproku u fiduċja bejn l-Istati Membri jistgħu jkunu soġġetti għal limitazzjonijiet minħabba l-ħtieġa li tiġi żgurata l-protezzjoni ta' dritt fundamentali garantiti mill-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea liema eventwalità, hija wkoll prevista espressament fl-Artikolu 1(3) tad-Deċiżjoni Kwadru. Dan huwa b’mod partikolari l-każ tal-projbizzjoni ta’ trattament u pieni inumani jew degradanti, li huma meqjusa assoluti u obbligatorji mill-artikoli 4 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea u l-artikolu 3 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea għad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem. Dan juri għalhekk li diġa hemm elementi ta’ garanzija li ma jirrendux il-“mutual trust” bħala “blind trust”
152. Din hija garanzija ta’ natura ġenerika dwar fatti li l-Italja, bħala Stat Membru tal-Unjoni Ewropea, hija mistennija li żżomm u twettaq, in kwantu bħal Malta hija marbuta kemm bit-termini tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem kif ukoll bil-Karta tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem tal-Unjoni Ewropea. Kif qalet id-Difiża kien hemm diversi każijiet magħmulin kontra l-Istat Taljan minħabba l-kundizzjonijiet tad-detenzjoni, b’mod partikolari l-“overcrowding” fil-ħabsijiet Taljani.
Hemm ukoll diversi każijiet partikolari li daħlu fuq dan l-allegat ksur, b’diversi minnhom isibu ksur. Iżda l-fatt li kien hemm dawn il-każijiet ma jfissirx li l-Italja ma għamlitx progress fil-qasam penitenzjarju tagħha. Fil-fatt ir-rapport tas-CPT maħruġ fl-2020 juri kemm u fejn l-Istat Taljan għamel progress fil-qasam tal-istrutturi penitenzjarji tiegħu. Il-problema tal-“overcrowding” tibqa’ tippersisti u b’hekk din il-garanzija ġenerali kienet tkun ta’ ftit għajnuna għal dan il-każ.
