FK v Stuttgart State Prosecutor's Office, Germany [2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin) (19 September 2017)

FK v Stuttgart State Prosecutor's Office, Germany [2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin) (19 September 2017)

The EAW was sufficiently particularised and described conduct amounting to fraud under UK law; the alleged conduct occurred in Germany, satisfying dual criminality; the passage of time did not render extradition oppressive; and the High Court has jurisdiction to admit further evidence from the respondent in the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: FK; Respondent: Stuttgart State Prosecutor's Office, Germany
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From District Judge's Extradition Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; renewed application for permission on Ground 4 refused.
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Dual Criminality, Particularisation of Offences, Passage of Time Bar, Article 8 ECHR, Jurisdiction to Admit Further Evidence
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law European Arrest Warrant Dual Criminality Particularisation of Offences Passage of Time Bar Article 8 ECHR +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FK

Appellant

Stuttgart State Prosecutor's Office, Germany

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From District Judge's Extradition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was inadequately particularised under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the EAW described extradition offences under sections 10 and 64 (dual criminality)
  3. 3 Whether extradition would be oppressive due to passage of time under section 14

Ratio Decidendi

The EAW was sufficiently particularised and described conduct amounting to fraud under UK law; the alleged conduct occurred in Germany, satisfying dual criminality; the passage of time did not render extradition oppressive; and the High Court has jurisdiction to admit further evidence from the respondent in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; renewed application for permission on Ground 4 refused.

Orders

  • Extradition order affirmed for charges 1-24.
  • Permission to appeal on Ground 4 (Article 8 ECHR) refused.