Zakrzewski v District Court In Torun, Poland & Anor

Zakrzewski v District Court In Torun, Poland & Anor

EAW 2 is invalid because, after the issue of the warrant, the Polish courts imposed a cumulative sentence which became the operative sentence, and the warrant was not updated to reflect this aggregate sentence as required by section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003. The requirements of section 2(2) are mandatory and the warrant must provide accurate information as to the sentence imposed. Extradition under EAW 1 is compatible with Article 8 ECHR as the appellant’s circumstances do not meet the high threshold for disproportionality.

Parties
Appellant: Lukasz Zakrzewski; First Respondent: District Court in Torun, Poland; Second Respondent: Regional Court in Lodz, Poland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From District Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Validity of Warrant, Article 8 ECHR, Aggregate Sentences, Procedural Requirements
Extradition Law Human Rights Law European Arrest Warrant Validity of Warrant Article 8 ECHR Aggregate Sentences Procedural Requirements

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lukasz Zakrzewski

Appellant

District Court in Torun, Poland

First Respondent

Regional Court in Lodz, Poland

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From District Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EAW 2 is invalid for failure to comply with section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003 by not stating the aggregate sentence imposed
  2. 2 Whether extradition under both warrants is compatible with the appellant’s rights under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

EAW 2 is invalid because, after the issue of the warrant, the Polish courts imposed a cumulative sentence which became the operative sentence, and the warrant was not updated to reflect this aggregate sentence as required by section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003. The requirements of section 2(2) are mandatory and the warrant must provide accurate information as to the sentence imposed. Extradition under EAW 1 is compatible with Article 8 ECHR as the appellant’s circumstances do not meet the high threshold for disproportionality.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appellant’s discharge and quashing of extradition order on EAW 2
  • Extradition of the Appellant to Poland on EAW 1 ordered