The High Court rejected Valdemaras Altaravicius’s objections to a European Arrest Warrant issued by Lithuania, finding that the evidence before it did not displace the presumption that Lithuania’s Prosecutor General was a competent judicial authority. The judgment does not record a final order surrendering him.
The warrant alleged that Altaravicius, with others, used mental coercion or physical violence against two juveniles in Songailu village on 28 December 2001 and stole a mobile phone and money. The alleged offence was punishable by up to six years in Lithuania. These were allegations in the warrant, not findings that he committed the offence.
The warrant was signed on 30 December 2004 by Lithuania’s Deputy Prosecutor General. It was endorsed for execution in Ireland on 5 April 2005, and Altaravicius was arrested ten days later. He was released on bail pending the High Court application under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The central issue was whether Lithuania’s Prosecutor General’s Office qualified as a “judicial authority” under Irish law. Altaravicius argued that the applicant had provided no evidence that the office was authorised under Lithuanian law to issue a European Arrest Warrant. The court said the Act had to be interpreted in light of the EU Framework Decision, which leaves each member state to designate its competent issuing authority. It held that the warrant’s having been issued by Lithuania’s prosecuting authority did not, by itself, raise sufficient doubt about compliance. No expert evidence on Lithuanian law had been filed despite adjournments, and the court found no clear, cogent and material evidence to rebut the applicable presumption.
The court also rejected the objections concerning whether the alleged conduct would amount to an Irish offence. It held that the described use of violence or threats to steal a phone and money would amount to robbery under Irish law, or at least theft. It rejected the argument that the scheme could not apply because the alleged conduct predated Lithuania’s EU membership, noting that the Act applied to offences alleged to have been committed before or after its commencement.
Other objections were abandoned or not pursued, or failed because no argument or evidence was advanced. The judgment states that the respondent’s objections failed. It does not set out a separate final order directing surrender in the supplied text.