The High Court has ordered the surrender of Ivo Smits to Latvia to serve a two-year prison sentence that was activated after he breached the conditions of its suspension. Mr Justice Paul Burns dismissed the respondent’s objections under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and ordered surrender under section 16.
The warrant was issued by Latvia’s Prosecutor General’s Office on 8 June 2015, following a proposal from a Latvian court. The sentence had been imposed on 29 May 2008 and suspended in full. After a breach of its conditions, it was activated on 20 October 2008; an appeal against activation was dismissed on 17 December that year. The warrant sought enforcement of the sentence, less two days already spent in custody.
The respondent argued that the prosecutor’s decision lacked effective judicial oversight, that surrender would breach his rights to family life under Article 8, and that the absence of a judicial review mechanism in Latvia would breach his fair-trial rights under Article 6. He relied on an expert report stating that Latvian law provided no court appeal or review of the decision to issue the European arrest warrant.
The court found that the Latvian court had proposed the warrant on 17 April 2015 after receiving information about the respondent’s alleged residence in Ireland. The prosecutor sought further material from the court on 11 May, received it on 25 May, and issued the warrant on 8 June. The judge concluded that this process provided sufficient judicial input, including consideration of proportionality. He also applied the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in ZB, concerning warrants issued to enforce sentences, and rejected the challenge to the warrant’s issue.
On Article 8, the respondent cited his marriage to an Irish national in 2017, their efforts to start a family, his employment and community involvement, and a back condition requiring surgery. The court held that these circumstances did not meet the high threshold for a truly exceptional case in which family-life rights would make surrender incompatible with the State’s obligations.
The judge said the absence of a judicial appeal or review mechanism in Latvia did not, by itself, require refusal of surrender. He left open that such an absence might matter in a case supported by cogent evidence of a real risk to Article 8 rights, but found no such risk established here. He also rejected the Article 6 objection, finding the evidence insufficient to show an egregious defect or a real risk of denial of fundamental rights.
The court dismissed all objections and found surrender was not prohibited under Part III of the Act. It therefore ordered surrender to the Republic of Latvia. The judgment does not state that surrender had already taken place.