The High Court has sought further information from Polish judicial authorities before deciding whether Artur Celmer should be surrendered under three European arrest warrants. The court made no final finding that his rights had been breached or that he faced a real risk of an unfair trial if surrendered.
In a judgment delivered on 1 August 2018, Ms Justice Donnelly said the court would invite both sides to propose questions for the Polish issuing authority under section 20 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The final choice of questions would be for the court. A further hearing on the substantive surrender application was set for the beginning of the next legal term.
The judge had referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which ruled on 25 July 2018 that an executing court must assess both systemic concerns about judicial independence and the risk to the individual in the particular case. The High Court found that the European Commission’s December 2017 reasoned proposal remained relevant and that it had seen no objective, reliable and updated material contradicting it. The judge concluded there was a real risk, arising from systemic or general deficiencies in Poland’s courts, of a breach of the right to a fair trial.
For the individual assessment, the court considered reports of remarks attributed to Poland’s Deputy Justice Minister in March 2018. According to newspaper reports put before the court, the official described Celmer as a criminal and referred to him as being sought for punishment, despite the warrants seeking his prosecution. The judge said the reported remarks appeared to impugn the presumption of innocence and were especially concerning given the Polish Justice Minister’s prosecutorial and judicial disciplinary roles described in the court’s earlier judgment.
The Minister’s counsel argued that the remarks did not show how Celmer’s fair-trial rights would be affected and that further information should be sought only after a specific risk had been established. Celmer’s counsel relied on the remarks and the earlier findings about the Polish courts. The judge said she did not need to resolve the broader dispute about when such information could be requested because specific concerns and supporting material had been presented in this case.
The judge stressed that the court had not yet decided whether there were substantial grounds to believe Celmer would face a real risk of being tried by a non-independent tribunal. That decision would follow receipt of the Polish authority’s response, any further evidence from Celmer, and further submissions. The court’s present order was to begin that information-gathering process; it did not refuse the warrants or decide the surrender application.