The High Court has ordered the surrender of Boncho Asenov to Germany for prosecution over alleged burglary-type offences. In a judgment delivered on 1 April 2022, Ms Justice Caroline Biggs found that surrender was not barred under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and made an order under section 16 of the Act.
The European Arrest Warrant was issued on 19 May 2021 by a judge of the Kiel Local Court. Mr Asenov was arrested in Ireland on 31 January 2022 under a Schengen Information System alert and brought before the High Court the following day. The warrant was produced to the court on 7 February.
Mr Asenov objected to surrender, arguing that it would disproportionately interfere with his and his family’s private and family life. In an affidavit, he said he had lived and worked in Ireland since October 2020, lived in rented accommodation in Cahir with his wife and father-in-law, and considered Ireland his home. He also described mental health conditions affecting him and his wife and said he cared for her when she was unwell.
The court sought further information from the German authorities about the six-year interval between the alleged offence, said to have occurred between 4 and 5 April 2015, and the European warrant. The authorities said a national arrest warrant had issued on 4 August 2015, that Mr Asenov had absconded after the crime, and that his whereabouts in Ireland became known when he was arrested. They said an EAW was issued after searches in Germany were unsuccessful. They also stated that, after transfer, the Kiel public prosecutor’s office would bring charges, following Mr Asenov’s right to be heard under German law.
The German response said fingerprints attributed to Mr Asenov had been found on a lamp in the apartment that was allegedly burgled. Mr Asenov had denied being in Kiel at the time, but his counsel conceded that this contention had no merit, the judgment said. The court did not determine his guilt.
The judge found that the delay did not amount to an abuse of process, accepting the explanation that Mr Asenov’s whereabouts had not been known. On the Article 8 objection, she considered medical reports concerning Mr Asenov and his wife. She found the evidence did not establish that his surrender would be incompatible with the State’s obligations: the material indicated that he could work and maintain family life if he took his medication, while there was no evidence his wife required daily care or that his surrender would prevent her from receiving treatment.
The court also found that surrender was not precluded under section 21A, which concerns whether a decision has been made to charge and try a person. It concluded that the statutory presumption had not been rebutted. The order permits surrender to Germany for prosecution; the judgment does not decide the alleged offences.