The High Court ordered the surrender of Koloman Racz to the Czech Republic to serve a 26-month prison sentence imposed there in 1999 for theft and embezzlement.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 27 April 2007 in an application by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended. The court made the order under section 16 of the Act.
The warrant was issued on 25 July 2006 and endorsed for execution by the High Court on 28 November 2006. Racz was arrested on 5 December 2006. Justice Peart said he was satisfied that Racz was the person named in the warrant. The Czech authority had identified the offences as falling within a category for which double criminality did not need to be established, and the minimum gravity requirement was met.
Racz argued that the warrant was deficient because it did not name a victim. The judge rejected that objection. Racz also said he had asked to appeal his sentence and had not received appeal papers or a form setting out the sentence. The judge found the argument was not made out, noting that expert evidence from a Czech lawyer would be needed to establish the relevant legal requirements. The warrant recorded that the Czech District Court verdict was pronounced while Racz was present, so the judge found no retrial undertaking was required.
On delay, the court noted that the offences were committed in March 1997, the conviction followed in April 1999, and Racz left the Czech Republic in October 1999. He said he arrived in Ireland in 2001, later withdrew an asylum application and was granted residence as the father of an Irish-born child. He married the child’s mother in October 2003. The judge found no evidence that the delay had prejudiced him in a way that justified refusing surrender. He also said there was no reason to believe Racz would not receive appropriate medical treatment if needed after surrender.
Racz submitted that his human rights would not be protected because he was a member of the Czech Roma community. He relied on general reports describing disadvantage and discrimination. The judge considered those reports too general to show that Racz’s rights were likely to be breached during his detention, or that his position would be prejudiced because of his ethnicity. The court found no basis under Part III of the Act or the Framework Decision to prohibit surrender.