The Irish Supreme Court has ruled that a man who is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by the UK is not at risk of having his rights infringed amid the UK’s plans to withdraw from the European Union.
Mr Thomas Joseph O’Connor’s surrender is sought by the UK on foot of an EAW, an order which he sought to have vacated by the High Court on the basis of the UK’s impending departure from the EU. Mr O’Connor claimed that as a result of Brexit, the full rights he currently avails of would not be guaranteed after the UK leaves.
The High Court affirmed the order and Mr O’Connor brought the matter to the Supreme Court, where the presiding judge Mr Justice Frank Clarke referred questions of EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for determination. This primarily consisted of questions surrounding uncertainty posed by Brexit in relation to rights conferred on EU citizens by the Treaties, Charter of Fundamental Rights and future arrangements between the EU and UK following its exit.
While the Supreme Court was awaiting the result of their request for a preliminary hearing, the CJEU gave judgement in a similar case (Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v R.O) that was before the High Court in which almost identical questions were referred to the CJEU. The CJEU ruled in this case that a Member State cannot refuse to execute an EAW while the issuing state is still in the EU, unless there is substantial grounds to believe that the subject of the warrant is at risk of being denied their rights under EU law.
In keeping with this judgement, the Supreme Court stated that the ‘‘overriding fundamental principle identified in the jurisprudence of the CJEU in matters such as this is that surrender should be ordered by a requested State unless, after a proper examination by the courts of the requested State, there is a real risk that the rights of the individual concerned will not be respected, should surrender be ordered.’’
Given that the UK currently remains a Member State, the Supreme Court found that ‘‘a mere theoretical possibility of impairment of rights’’ did not amount to a real risk, therefore there were no substantial grounds to refuse to execute the EAW.
However the matter was adjourned for 4 weeks giving Mr O’Connor the opportunity to make a submission to the EU questioning the validity of the decision given in Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v R.O.
Click here for the Supreme Court judgement.