The High Court dismissed three objections by Vasile-Alin Jelecutean to his surrender to Germany for prosecution over alleged trafficking in stolen vehicles. Justice Paul Burns said the court would make an order under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 for his surrender.
The application was brought by the Minister for Justice and Equality under a European arrest warrant issued on 13 May 2020 by a judge of the Local Court in Augsburg. Jelecutean was arrested in Ireland on 22 March 2021 under a Schengen Information System II alert. The warrant was produced to the High Court three days later.
The objections argued that no decision had been made in Germany to charge and try him; that section 44 of the Act barred surrender because the alleged offences were committed outside Germany; and that the warrant did not give enough detail about the alleged offences under section 11.
On the first objection, the judge considered a report from German lawyer Wolfgang Bendler and information from the issuing authority. The authority described the case as being at the pre-trial stage. Bendler’s report said an indictment would follow if Jelecutean were transferred, and that German procedure required the accused to be available before indictment. The judge concluded that the evidence did not rebut the statutory presumption that a decision had been made to charge and try Jelecutean. He also found that the documents showed such a decision had in fact been made.
The section 44 objection concerned allegations that vehicles had been obtained in Hungary, Romania or Italy through fraud, theft or misappropriation, then taken to Germany, where false documents were allegedly used to register and sell them. The judge found that the alleged criminal activity included significant acts in Germany, particularly the sales. Jelecutean therefore had not met the first part of the section 44 test, and the judge dismissed that objection without needing the second part to be satisfied.
On section 11, the judge found that the warrant described 12 alleged offences and set out, for each, the time and place, vehicle, buyer, sale price and false personal data used. It also alleged that Jelecutean acted with others. The judge said the information sufficiently described the alleged circumstances and Jelecutean’s alleged involvement, and dismissed the objection.
The court found that surrender was not precluded by the Act. It dismissed all three objections and said it would make the section 16 surrender order. The judgment records the intended order; it does not state that surrender had already taken place.