Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform -v- Ferenca [2008] IESC 52 (31 July 2008)

Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform -v- Ferenca [2008] IESC 52 (31 July 2008)

Surrender cannot be ordered where the European Arrest Warrant includes a composite sentence for multiple offences, one of which does not correspond to an Irish offence and is not identified as an Article 2.2 offence by the issuing state. The absence of a ticked box for Article 2.2 offences is determinative; the executing state cannot substitute its own assessment of the conduct. The phrase 'an offence that consists of conduct specified in that paragraph' in s.38(1)(b) is inoperative, as Article 2.2 lists offences, not conduct, and only the issuing state can classify offences under Article 2.2.

Citation
[2008] IESC 52
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Respondent/appellant: Saulius Ferenca
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 July 2008
Procedural Posture
European Arrest Warrant Surrender/extradition Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order of Surrender
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order for surrender set aside
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Double Criminality, Correspondence of Offences, Interpretation of Framework Decision, Composite Sentencing
Criminal Law Extradition Law European Union Law European Arrest Warrant Double Criminality Correspondence of Offences Interpretation of Framework Decision Composite Sentencing

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant/respondent

Saulius Ferenca

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

European Arrest Warrant Surrender/extradition Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order of Surrender

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether surrender can be ordered where one of multiple offences in a composite sentence does not correspond to an Irish offence and is not identified as an Article 2.2 offence under the Framework Decision
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a ticked box in the European Arrest Warrant for Article 2.2 offences precludes surrender without double criminality verification
  3. 3 Whether the phrase 'an offence that consists of conduct specified in that paragraph' in s.38(1)(b) of the 2003 Act has any operative effect

Ratio Decidendi

Surrender cannot be ordered where the European Arrest Warrant includes a composite sentence for multiple offences, one of which does not correspond to an Irish offence and is not identified as an Article 2.2 offence by the issuing state. The absence of a ticked box for Article 2.2 offences is determinative; the executing state cannot substitute its own assessment of the conduct. The phrase 'an offence that consists of conduct specified in that paragraph' in s.38(1)(b) is inoperative, as Article 2.2 lists offences, not conduct, and only the issuing state can classify offences under Article 2.2.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order for surrender set aside

Orders

  • Order of the High Court directing surrender of the appellant set aside
  • Surrender of the appellant to Lithuania refused