Lithuania / Supreme Court / 2K-7-2-699/2016

H. D., E. A., R. Z., A. G.
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court of Lithuania
Type
Decision
Decision date
16/06/2016
  • Lithuania / Supreme Court / 2K-7-2-699/2016

    Key facts of the case: 

    H. D., E. A., R. Z., A. G. were convicted of various serious crimes, including participation in criminal association, murders, extortion of property, etc. Both, the prosecutor and the convicts, appealed against the sentence of the Klaipeda district court (Klaipėdos apygardos teismas). The Court of Appeal of Lithuania (Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas) changed some parts of the sentence, but again both the parties submitted cassation appeals to the Supreme Court of Lithuania (Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas). One of the convicts (H. D.) has asked the Court to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling with a question if the guarantees set forth in the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (in particular, concerning a possibility to review the imposition of the custodial life sentence to an extradited person), in case they lack efficient application, can influence the issue examined by a national court, given the imposition of a final sentence as the realisation of this guarantee. 

    Outcome of the case:

    The Supreme Court rejected the cassation complaints of both sides and concluded that the guarantee to review custodial life sentence in Lithuania is real and efficient (after 20 years of imprisonment the sentence may be reviewed by the Pardon Commission). Therefore, the question regarding the influence of the guarantee of Framework Decision for the decision of the national court on the sentence, in case this guarantee is not efficiently applied in the country, which has issued the European arrest warrant, is not important for the present case. Thus, the court rejected the request to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.

     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    An extended seven-judge panel notes that the Framework Decision regulates a system of surrender between judicial authorities of convicted or suspected persons for the purpose of enforcing judgments or of conducting prosecutions, based on the principle of mutual recognition (eg., Decision of 16 July 2015 Minister for Justice and Equality v. Francis Lanigan, not yet published, paragraph 27). The Framework decision sets forth the definition of the European arrest warrant (hereinafter - EAW) and the obligation to execute it, the scope of the application, grounds for compulsory and optional non-execution, the guarantees given by the issuing Member State in exceptional cases, the determination of competent judicial authorities and their intercommunication arrangements, content and form of the EAW, EAW and the rules on transfer of requested person, outcomes of the transfer. The preamble to the Framework decision, among other things, stipulates that it respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and which are reflected in the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular Chapter VI thereof (Preamble indent 12). No person should be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Preamble indent 13). Article 4 of European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Explanations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights indicate that the right in Article 4 is the right guaranteed by Article 3 of the ECHR, which has the same wording. According to paragraph 3 of Article 52 of the Charter the meaning and scope of the rights are the same as those laid down by the ECHR. Article 51 of the Charter defining its field of application stipulates that the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity, and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined in the Treaties.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Išplėstinė septynių teisėjų kolegija pažymi, kad Pagrindų sprendimas reglamentuoja tarpusavio pripažinimo principu pagrįstą nuteistų ar įtariamų asmenų perdavimą tarp valstybių narių teisminių institucijų, siekiant įvykdyti baudžiamuosius nuosprendžius arba šių asmenų persekiojimą (pvz., 2015 m. liepos 16 d. Sprendimo Minister for Justice and Equality prieš Francis Lanigan, dar nepaskelbtas Rinkinyje, 27 punktas). Pagrindų sprendime įtvirtintas Europos arešto orderio (toliau – EAO) apibrėžimas ir įpareigojimas jį vykdyti, taikymo sritis, privalomo ir neprivalomo nevykdymo pagrindai, išduodančiosios valstybės narės suteikiamos garantijos ypatingais atvejais, kompetentingų teisminių institucijų nustatymas ir jų susižinojimo tvarka, EAO turinys ir forma, EAO ir prašomo perduoti asmens perdavimo tvarka, perdavimo pasekmės. Pagrindų sprendimų preambulėje, be kita ko, nustatyta, kad jis grindžiamas pagarba pagrindinėms teisėms ir principams, kurie pripažįstami Europos Sąjungos sutarties 6 straipsnyje ir kurie atsispindi Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijoje, ypač jos VI skyriuje (Preambulės 12 įtrauka). Joks asmuo neturėtų būti perkeltas, išsiųstas ar perduotas valstybei, kurioje yra rimtas pavojus, kad jam bus pritaikyta mirties bausmė, kankinimai arba kitoks nežmoniškas ar žeminantis elgesys arba bausmė (Preambulės 13 įtrauka). Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos 4 straipsnyje nustatyta, kad niekas negali būti kankinamas, patirti nežmonišką ar žeminantį elgesį arba būti taip baudžiamas. Su pagrindinių teisių chartija susijusiuose išaiškinimuose nurodyta, kad Chartijos 4 straipsnyje nurodyta teisė yra Konvencijos 3 straipsnyje garantuota teisė, kurios formuluotė yra ta pati. Pagal Chartijos 52 straipsnio 3 dalį jo esmė ir taikymo sritis yra tokia pati kaip atitinkamo Konvencijos straipsnio. Chartijos 51 straipsnyje apibrėžiant jos taikymo sritį nustatyta, kad Chartijos nuostatos skirtos Sąjungos institucijoms, įstaigoms ir organams, tinkamai atsižvelgiant į subsidiarumo principą, bei valstybėms narėms tais atvejais, kai šios įgyvendina Sąjungos teisę. Chartija neišplečia Sąjungos teisės taikymo srities už Sąjungos įgaliojimų ribų, nenustato Sąjungai naujų įgaliojimų ar užduočių ir nepakeičia Sutartyse nustatytųjų.