Judgment: 2006-11-24 · Court archive

High Court orders surrender to Lithuania in alleged VAT fraud case

The court rejected a delay objection and ordered surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act, finding no evidence of prejudice.

High Court · [2006] IEHC 374

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Gintautas Peciukenas (Respondent)
  • Michael Peart (Judge)
  • Kieran Kelly
What

The court rejected a delay objection and ordered surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act, finding no evidence of prejudice.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Lithuania
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 24 November 2004; 14 June 2006; 18 July 2006

    Lithuanian authorities sought surrender under a European arrest warrant issued on 24 November 2004. It was received in Ireland on 14 June 2006 and endorsed for execution by the High Court on 18 July 2006. Peciukenas was arrested on 23 August and brought before the court. Justice Michael Peart said there was no dispute about identification and that he was satisfied the respondent was the person named in the warrant.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Lithuanian authorities sought surrender under a European arrest warrant issued on 24 November 2004. It was received in Ireland on 14 June 2006 and endorsed for execution by the High Court on 18 July 2006. Peciukenas was arrested on 23 August and brought before the court. Justice Michael Peart said there was no dispute about identification and that he was satisfied the respondent was the person named in the warrant.

The High Court ordered the surrender of Gintautas Peciukenas to Lithuania to face an alleged fraud offence described in the warrant as VAT fraud. The ruling was made on 24 November 2006 under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

Lithuanian authorities sought surrender under a European arrest warrant issued on 24 November 2004. It was received in Ireland on 14 June 2006 and endorsed for execution by the High Court on 18 July 2006. Peciukenas was arrested on 23 August and brought before the court. Justice Michael Peart said there was no dispute about identification and that he was satisfied the respondent was the person named in the warrant.

The alleged offence was said to have been committed in 2001. The judgment records that the warrant classified fraud as an offence under Article 2.2 of the EU Framework Decision for which dual criminality did not need to be verified. The offence met the Act’s minimum gravity requirement because it was punishable in Lithuania by up to eight years’ imprisonment.

For the respondent, Kieran Kelly BL argued that the time taken to issue and execute the warrant was unexplained and inconsistent with the requirement for urgency. The court noted that the respondent had filed no affidavit explaining how the delay had prejudiced his ability to defend the charge. Justice Peart considered the period between the alleged offence and the warrants in light of the time fraud investigations can take. He also found the later period before endorsement was not exceptional in length, while noting it was unexplained.

The judge held that the Framework Decision’s urgency requirement did not give an individual respondent a basis to obtain release and refusal of surrender in these circumstances. He found no evidence of prejudice and said the elapsed time was too short for prejudice to be implied. The court concluded that surrender was not prohibited by Part 3 of the Act or the Framework Decision. It ordered surrender to an authorised recipient in Lithuania and committed Peciukenas to prison pending arrangements for the transfer.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review