The High Court refused an application to surrender a man to Lithuania to serve the remaining 1 year, 7 months and 24 days of a prison sentence imposed in Norway. Ms Justice Donnelly held that section 10(d) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 required the sentence to have been imposed in the issuing state, Lithuania, and that the provision could not be read otherwise.
The request followed a European Arrest Warrant issued by Lithuania in May 2018. The man, a Lithuanian national, had been sentenced in Norway to four years and six months for a drug offence involving 4.6kg of methamphetamine transported from Sweden. Lithuania recognised the Norwegian sentence under a bilateral agreement, transferred him there to serve the remainder, and later released him on conditional parole. According to the warrant, he breached the conditions and parole was revoked. He was arrested in Ireland.
The High Court had referred questions about the warrant to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In March 2021, the CJEU ruled that a warrant could be issued to enforce a sentence imposed in a third country if a court in the issuing state had recognised it, subject to conditions including a sentence of at least four months and protection of fundamental rights. It also said the territoriality question should be assessed by reference to the third country’s criminal jurisdiction.
After the case returned to the High Court, the respondent argued that Irish law still barred surrender. The Minister for Justice submitted that Lithuania’s recognition of the sentence made it enforceable there and that surrender was permitted. The Minister also argued that the described conduct could hypothetically amount to conspiracy under Irish law.
Justice Donnelly rejected the respondent’s arguments that the EU rules could not be applied through a conforming interpretation in this case, or that the CJEU ruling was inapplicable because the EU agreement with Norway and Iceland came into force after the warrant was issued. She also found no reason, on the material raised, to doubt that the required fundamental rights had been respected in Norway or Lithuania.
But she concluded that the ordinary meaning and legislative history of section 10(d) required the sentence to have been imposed in Lithuania. The Norwegian court had imposed the sentence; Lithuania had recognised and enforced it. The court therefore refused surrender under section 10(d). It did not decide whether section 44, concerning offences committed outside the issuing state, independently barred surrender.