The High Court has ordered Martin Klovans’s surrender to Latvia for prosecution on an alleged robbery-type offence, rejecting his objection under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2021, Ms Justice Caroline Biggs said the evidence did not establish that surrender would be incompatible with Ireland’s obligations under Article 8. The order was made under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
Latvia’s European Arrest Warrant, dated 14 December 2017, was issued by Arturs Tomings of the Latvian Prosecutor General’s Office. Klovans was arrested in Ireland on 28 October 2021 following a Schengen Information System II alert. The warrant was produced to the High Court on 10 November.
Klovans objected that surrender would cause undue prejudice and disrupt the life he had built in Ireland. An affidavit sworn by his solicitor described him as a Latvian citizen who had arrived in Ireland around 2013 and had family and friends here. It said his brother’s family had lived in County Longford for more than 18 years, and that Klovans could live with his brother and had a possible full-time job at a dog food factory if his objection succeeded. The affidavit also referred to his mother’s ill health in Latvia and to his history of substance abuse and time in custody.
The court applied the principles set out in earlier appellate decisions, including that an Article 8 objection requires clear, cogent evidence capable of rebutting the presumption in section 4A of the 2003 Act. Justice Biggs found the solicitor’s affidavit did not go beyond the norm and did not meet that threshold. She said a proposed request for further information under section 20 would serve no purpose and dismissed the objection.
The court also found that the statutory grounds in sections 21A, 22, 23 and 24 did not preclude surrender, that the minimum gravity requirement was met, and that the Latvian offence corresponded to robbery under Irish law. As surrender was sought for prosecution, no issue arose under section 45. The judgment concerns the surrender application; it does not determine Klovans’s guilt or the Latvian prosecution.