Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Croatia / Supreme Court / I Kž 528/2019-16

I.N.
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
20/04/2020

Харта на основните права на Европейския съюз

Title II: Freedoms

Article 19 - Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Croatia / Supreme Court / I Kž 528/2019-16
     
    Key facts of the case:
    On 20 May 2015, Interpol’s Bureau in Moscow issued an international wanted persons notice for I.N. for his arrest, on account of criminal proceedings for passive corruption. On 30 June 2019, I.N. was arrested in Croatia at the border control between Slovenia and Croatia, where he was seeking to enter the territory as a bus passenger in possession of an Icelandic travel document for refugees. The County Court in Zagreb received a note from the Embassy of Iceland confirming that, since 19 June 2019, I.N. has been a citizen of Iceland and has the status of a permanent resident in Iceland. The note also stated that the Icelandic Government requested that I.N. be guaranteed safe passage to Iceland with a minimum of delay. On 6 August 2019, the County Court in Zagreb received a request from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation for the extradition of I.N. to that third State, in accordance with the provisions of the European Convention on Extradition on account of criminal proceedings against him for several offences of passive corruption. On 5 September 2019, the County Court in Zagreb held that the legal conditions for the extradition of I.N. were met. I.N. appealed against that order to the Supreme Court of Republic of Croatia. He claimed that there is a concrete, serious and reasonably foreseeable risk that, if he were extradited to the Russian Federation, he would be subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. He also pointed out that his status as a refugee had been recognised in Iceland precisely on account of the actual criminal proceedings of which he had been the subject in Russia. The Supreme Court, as a court of second instance, noted that the court of first instance omitted to analyse in detail the fact that the foreign national was granted asylum in Iceland and subsequently acquired Icelandic citizenship. Following the extradited person's appeal, the Supreme Court annulled the first-instance decision and returned the case to the court of first instance for retrial.
     
    Key legal question raised by the Court:
    The key legal question raised by the Supreme Court was a preliminary ruling rendered by the Court of Justice of the EU (Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 April 2020). The Supreme Court questioned whether the EU law applies equally to EU citizens and Icelandic citizens, since Iceland is a part of Schengen acquis, participates in the common asylum system and is a signatory to the EFTA and EEA Agreements.
     
    Outcome of the case:
    The Supreme Court annulled the first-instance decision and remanded the case for retrial. It gave instructions for the retrial to the court of first instance to urgently inform Iceland and request a statement in relation to the extradition of its citizen to a country outside the EU territory - the Russian Federation. If Iceland is not interested in extradition of its citizen, the court of first instance will verify whether the extradition could undermine the rights from Article 19 of the Charter and re-examine the existence of legal requirements for extradition under the national law. After that, it will urgently adopt a new decision on the extradition of the person to the Russian Federation which shall be properly explained.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    “The Court first pointed out that there is a preferential relationship between Iceland and the Union because that third country, in addition to being a member of the Schengen area and a party to the EEA Agreement, participates in the Common European Asylum System. Besides, the Agreement between the Council of the European Union, Iceland and Norway on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway entered into force on 1 November 2019. Furthermore, having stated that the provisions of the Charter also apply because the situation in question is governed by Union law, the court clarified the scope of protection granted by Article 19 (2) of the Charter, according to which no one may be extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Court therefore concluded that the Member State to which the extradition request was addressed must, before enforcing it, verify that it would not infringe the rights set out in that article.” “Only in case Iceland does not request the extradition of its citizen for prosecution, after determining the existence of legal preconditions under the national law, the first instance court will decide on the request of the Russian Federation to extradite the citizen of Iceland for prosecution. If the latter situation arises, the first instance court will be obliged to verify whether extradition undermines the rights from Article 3 of the Convention (ECtHR) and Article 19 of the Charter which stipulate that no one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” “In the event Iceland is not interested in the surrender of its citizen, the first instance court will verify whether extradition may undermine the rights under Article 19 of the Charter and re-examine the existence of legal conditions for extradition under the national law, after which, taking into account that the extradited person is in pre-trial detention, it will urgently adopt a new decision which will then be duly explained.“

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    “Sud je najprije istaknuo da između Islanda i Unije postoji povlašten odnos jer ta treća država, osim što je članica schengenskog područja i stranka Sporazuma o EGP-u, sudjeluje u zajedničkom europskom sustavu azila, a osim toga je 1. studenog 2019. na snagu stupio Sporazum između Vijeća Europske unije i Islanda i Kraljevine Norveške o postupku predaje između država članica EU i Islanda i Norveške. Nadalje, nakon što je naveo da se odredbe Povelje također primjenjuju jer je predmetna situacija uređena pravom Unije, Sud je pojasnio doseg zaštite koju pruža čl. 19. st. 2. Povelje, u skladu s kojim nitko ne smije biti izručen u državu u kojoj postoji ozbiljna opasnost da bude podvrgnut smrtnoj kazni, mučenju ili drugom nečovječnom ili ponižavajućem postupanju ili kazni. Sud je stoga zaključio da država članica kojoj je upućen zahtjev za izručenje prije eventualnog izvršenja tog zahtjeva mora provjeriti da se njime ne bi ugrozila prava iz tog članka.”

    “Tek u situaciji ukoliko Island ne zatraži predaju svog državljana radi kaznenog progona, prvostupanjski će sud, nakon što utvrdi postojanje zakonskih pretpostavki po domaćem pravu, donijeti odluku vezanu uz zahtjev Ruske Federacije o izručenju islandskog državljana radi kaznenog progona. Ukoliko dođe do potonje situacije, prvostupanjski sud će biti dužan provjeriti da li se izručenjem ugrožavaju prava iz čl. 3. Konvencije (ESLJP) i čl. 19. Povelje koja nalaže da nitko ne može biti udaljen, protjeran ili izručen u državu u kojoj postoji ozbiljna opasnost da bude podvrgnut smrtnoj kazni, mučenju ili drugom nečovječnom ili ponižavajućem postupku ili kazni.” “U slučaju da Island ne bude zainteresiran za predaju svog državljanina, prvostupanjski će sud provjeriti da li bi izručenjem moglo doći do ugrožavanja prava iz čl. 19. Povelje te će ponovno provjeriti postojanje zakonskih uvjeta za izručenje prema domaćem pravu, a nakon čega će, vodeći računa da se izručenik nalazi u istražnom zatvoru, žurno donijeti novu odluku koju će potom i valjano obrazložiti.”