Judgment: 2017-10-20 · Court archive

Court of Appeal rejects Vytautas Dunauskis challenge to German European Arrest Warrant

Court of Appeal · [2017] IECA 266

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Vytautas Dunauskis (Respondent)
What

Court of Appeal rejects Vytautas Dunauskis challenge to German European Arrest Warrant

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Lubeck
  • Schleswig-Holstein
  • High Court
  • Court of Appeal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court had accepted that structure as providing sufficient independence. It found that while the Schleswig-Holstein Ministry of Justice had a limited external power of instruction, legal safeguards and transparency requirements constrained its use.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed Vytautas Dunauskis’s challenge to an order for his surrender to Germany under a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Public Prosecutor in Lubeck.

The appeal arose from a High Court decision of March 23, 2017 rejecting objections to surrender. The principal legal issue was whether a German public prosecutor could qualify as an “issuing judicial authority” under Ireland’s European Arrest Warrant legislation.

Dunauskis argued that German prosecutors were not sufficiently independent of the executive. Evidence submitted on his behalf stated that prosecutors were not judges, could not themselves issue domestic arrest warrants and were subject to a hierarchy in which instructions could ultimately originate from a Ministry of Justice.

The German issuing authority responded that prosecutors were integral to the administration of criminal justice, were bound by law and objectivity, and operated within safeguards governing any ministerial intervention. It also confirmed that no instruction had been issued by the Ministry of Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the senior Lubeck prosecutor in Dunauskis’s case.

The High Court had accepted that structure as providing sufficient independence. It found that while the Schleswig-Holstein Ministry of Justice had a limited external power of instruction, legal safeguards and transparency requirements constrained its use.

The Court of Appeal agreed.

Mr Justice Birmingham said the concept of a “judicial authority” under the EU Framework Decision could not be confined to the traditional common-law understanding of a judge. What mattered was functional independence from the executive rather than formal membership of the judiciary.

The court found the German system functionally independent and the Lubeck prosecutor de facto independent of political control. The theoretical possibility of ministerial direction did not, by itself, remove the prosecutor’s status as a judicial authority.

The appeal was therefore dismissed, leaving the High Court’s surrender order undisturbed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review