The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Artur Celmer against his surrender to Poland under three European arrest warrants. The court held that the evidence did not establish a real risk that he would be tried before a court that was not independent and would therefore suffer a breach of the essence of his fair trial rights.
The warrants, issued by regional courts in Poznan, Warsaw and Wloclawek, seek Mr Celmer’s surrender to face trial on five charges relating to drug offences and participation in an organised criminal group. The Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered by O’Donnell J. on 12 November 2019, concerned his objection under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, based on the claimed risk to a fair trial arising from changes to Poland’s judiciary.
The High Court had found systemic or generalised deficiencies affecting judicial independence in Poland and concluded that those deficiencies reached the level of courts where Mr Celmer might be tried. It nevertheless ordered surrender, finding that the evidence did not establish the required individual risk. Mr Celmer appealed after receiving leave from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said the Court of Justice of the European Union required a specific and precise assessment of whether the systemic deficiencies would affect the individual case. A general finding of serious deficiencies was not enough: the court had to consider whether there were substantial grounds to believe Mr Celmer faced a real risk of trial before a court that was not independent.
The court considered evidence about changes to Poland’s judicial system, including the removal or replacement of regional court presidents, and public comments by a Polish deputy justice minister referring to Mr Celmer as a dangerous criminal. It said those comments raised serious concerns, particularly given the minister’s powers in relation to the courts. However, it also relied on evidence from a Polish judge, who said the comments and changes to court leadership would not affect the resolution of cases in his jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not show that the changes had affected trials in the three regional courts, or that they created the necessary individual risk in Mr Celmer’s case. It dismissed the appeal and said the High Court was correct to order surrender. The judgment noted that further changes to Poland’s judicial system and evidence about their practical effect on trials could be relevant in future cases.