The Supreme Court has referred two questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a case about whether a Latvian court hearing that converted police supervision into imprisonment was a “trial resulting in the decision” under European arrest warrant rules.
The referral means the Supreme Court has not yet resolved that legal question or finally determined the appeal. The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne on 14 December 2023, also does not itself decide whether Sergejs Radionovs must be surrendered to Latvia.
Mr Radionovs was convicted of two offences in 2014. In 2015, a Latvian court consolidated the sentences into four years and nine months in prison, followed by three years of police supervision. After his release in August 2019, he did not report to the designated police station as required. Two Latvian court decisions in May 2020 imposed administrative fines of €30 and €40 for the violations.
Latvian law permits a court, following two administrative sentences within a year for violating police supervision, to replace the unserved supervision with detention. A hearing took place at Zemgale District Court on 19 August 2020 in Mr Radionovs’ absence. The court ordered that the remaining two years and two days of supervision be converted into one year and one day in custody. A summons had been sent by registered post to his notified address but was returned uncollected. The written decision was also returned unclaimed, and no appeal was brought.
The Minister for Justice appealed after the High Court refused surrender. The High Court had found that the 2020 hearing was not a “trial resulting in the decision” under Article 4a of the EU Framework Decision or section 45 of Ireland’s European Arrest Warrant Act. It nevertheless refused surrender, finding that Mr Radionovs had not been told that breach of supervision could lead to a further hearing and imprisonment.
The Supreme Court said the 2020 order did not impose a new sentence or change the original sentence’s nature or maximum duration: the period of detention was calculated under a statutory ratio. But the Latvian court had discretion over whether to impose detention, and Mr Radionovs’ presence might have affected that decision. The Supreme Court said it was therefore not clear whether the hearing came within Article 4a. It also concluded that the evidence before it did not establish that the earlier administrative fines were “trigger offences” engaging the rule, distinguishing the case from the CJEU’s decision in LU.
The court proposed referring two questions to the CJEU: whether the proceedings leading to the custodial sentence fell within Article 4a, and whether converting police supervision into custody modified the nature or quantum of the earlier sentence. The judgment does not state the CJEU’s response or a final outcome on surrender.