The High Court ordered Bashkim Osaj’s surrender to Belgium to serve a 15-year prison sentence, after finding that the legal requirements for surrender were met and that his objections did not justify refusing it.
Mr Justice Paul Burns delivered judgment on 6 December 2021 in proceedings brought by the Minister for Justice under a European arrest warrant issued on 2 September 2019. The warrant sought Mr Osaj’s surrender to enforce a sentence imposed in Belgium on 26 June 2019, with 4,856 days left to serve.
The warrant related to five offences said to have been committed in Voeren and elsewhere in Belgium between 1 July and 2 October 2015. They included theft involving violence or threats, hostage-taking, attempted extortion and forming a criminal gang. These were descriptions of the offences in the warrant, not findings made in the Irish proceedings.
The judge found that the warrant’s minimum sentence threshold was met and that surrender was not precluded under the relevant sections of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. He also found that the offences corresponded to offences under Irish law, including burglary or robbery, false imprisonment, attempted robbery or extortion, and participation in a criminal organisation or conspiracy. The respondent did not seriously contest correspondence, the judgment said.
A key issue was that Mr Osaj had not appeared in person at the appeal hearing that led to the Belgian decision. The warrant stated that he had been summoned and told the hearing could proceed in his absence, and that the decision would be served after surrender with information about a 15-day appeal period. The High Court obtained further details from the Belgian authority. Mr Osaj had sworn that he was represented by a Belgian lawyer and had been told about the sentence; the court was later told his reference to entering a guilty plea was mistaken. The judge found that he knew of the proceedings, had instructed a lawyer who represented him, and that his defence rights had been respected.
The court also accepted that surrender would significantly disrupt Mr Osaj’s private and family life, but found his circumstances did not meet the exceptional threshold for refusing surrender on human-rights grounds.
The judge concluded that the court could make a surrender order under section 16. Because there was also a separate Austrian surrender request, he initially postponed making an order while considering which request should take effect first. Following further consideration, the court ordered surrender to Belgium in this case and declined to make a surrender order in the other proceedings.