The High Court dismissed Liam Campbell’s claim that the State’s failure to implement an EU prisoner-transfer framework decision was actionable at his request. Mr Justice Paul Coffey held that the admitted failure was not justiciable in the circumstances before him and refused the declaration sought.
The case concerned Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, which was due to be implemented in Irish law by 5 December 2011. The State accepted that it had not met that deadline. The judgment said the European Commission had commenced infringement proceedings against Ireland, while the framework decision itself had no direct effect in domestic law.
Campbell, an Irish national, was the subject of a European Arrest Warrant seeking his surrender to Lithuania for prosecution on three alleged offences. In July 2020, the High Court ordered his surrender; he appealed, and the Court of Appeal had reserved judgment after a hearing in January 2021. The allegations and potential sentences described in the judgment were not findings that Campbell had committed the offences.
He argued that, if surrendered, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in Lithuania, implementation of the framework decision could allow him to apply to serve his sentence in Ireland. The judgment noted that the decision provides a procedure through which a sentenced person may request that authorities initiate a transfer process. It does not require the issuing state to forward the judgment and certificate, and it does not guarantee repatriation.
At the hearing, Campbell withdrew two other claims: one concerning a separate framework decision, which had since been given effect by legislation, and one alleging breaches of Charter rights. His remaining claim sought a declaration about the State’s failure to implement the prisoner-transfer decision.
The judge said the state-liability remedy established in Francovich concerned reparation for loss and damage caused by a breach of EU law. Campbell had not yet been sentenced, and the possible benefit he described might never arise. The court also found that a declaration would serve no useful purpose, given that the Government was already preparing legislation to implement the decision.
The court dismissed the claim and refused the relief. It did not determine whether the framework decision’s requirements could ever support prospective relief in another case; the judgment said that question might arise in a future case involving imminent and inevitable impairment of a right.