The High Court has ordered Gzim Bardhoku’s surrender to Austria for prosecution over alleged robbery and false imprisonment, dismissing his objections to the request.
In a judgment delivered on 16 June 2022, Ms Justice Caroline Biggs made the order under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The offences relate to an alleged home invasion in Ried im Innkreis in June 2013. The judgment records that two separately prosecuted co-accused had been convicted; it does not determine Mr Bardhoku’s guilt.
Mr Bardhoku argued that the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was initially issued without court endorsement and that the related Schengen Information System (SIS) alert therefore lacked a valid basis. The court found that the warrant was authorised by an Austrian court before his arrest in Ireland on 5 August 2021. It held that the surrender hearing required it to assess the warrant before it and the statutory criteria, not to conduct a separate review of the earlier SIS alert. It concluded that the required procedure had been followed and that the warrant was valid for the surrender application.
The judge rejected his claim that the proceedings were an abuse of process. Although the SIS alert had been entered in 2019 before the EAW was court-authorised, the court found no evidence of abuse by the Austrian authorities.
The court also dismissed an objection that surrender was being sought only to question him, rather than to prosecute. Austria told the court that an indictment had not yet been brought because its procedure required Mr Bardhoku to be heard first. The issuing authority said it intended to assess his criminal liability after that hearing and bring an indictment. The judge found the statutory presumption that a decision had been made to charge and try him had not been rebutted.
Mr Bardhoku further argued that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his family and private life. He relied on his family circumstances, including his close relationship with a son diagnosed with autism, and on the time that had passed since the alleged offences. The court acknowledged the difficulties but found the evidence did not meet the high threshold required to prevent surrender. It also noted Austria’s assurance that any transfer to Belgium would require Ireland’s approval.
The order permits surrender to Austria for the stated prosecution purpose. The judgment does not decide the criminal allegations or order a transfer to Belgium.