The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court’s reliance on information from related proceedings about Lithuanian law when deciding whether to surrender Gerchard Firantas to Lithuania. It answered a certified question on the use of that information; the judgment does not state that it made a new surrender order in this appeal.
Lithuania seeks Mr Firantas’s surrender to face trial for two offences of theft and criminal damage under a European Arrest Warrant issued on 15 April 2016. The dispute concerned whether Lithuania’s Prosecutor General could issue an EAW while meeting the requirements for effective judicial protection, including access to a court appeal.
In related proceedings involving Mr Lisauskas, the Lithuanian authorities had told the Irish High Court that an appeal against the issue of an EAW was available. The High Court later relied on that information in Mr Firantas’s case and rejected his objection to surrender. It also rejected his argument that the Minister could not rely on information supplied in another case. The judge considered that evidence from Lithuanian lawyer Simas Tokarčakas did not establish that the authorities’ account of Lithuanian law was wrong, and identified a “major evidential defect” in the material presented.
Mr Firantas appealed. He argued that the Lithuanian authorities had not confirmed that the information applied to him, and that a later Alytus District Court decision was new, uncontradicted evidence. He said foreign law had to be determined afresh in each case and that the High Court should have accepted his expert evidence or, at least, sought further information. The Minister argued that the information from the related case was general in application and that the High Court was entitled to find the evidence against it insufficient.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s approach. It stressed that the cases were related and that Mr Firantas’s proceedings had been adjourned pending the Lisauskas appeal. The information about Lithuanian law had been supplied in response to a request from the Irish High Court, rather than picked up incidentally in unrelated proceedings. Requiring the same information to be requested repeatedly, the court said, would conflict with mutual trust and confidence between states.
The court also said that seeking further information should be exceptional, not routine. It answered the certified question that the High Court may rely on information supplied in separate proceedings where it had previously accepted that information, the information is of universal application, and the facts give it no reason to seek clarification. The judgment determined that question and upheld the High Court’s approach; it did not record a fresh order for surrender by the Court of Appeal.