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

Sweden / Supreme Court / Ö 6598-19

Plaintiff of the appeal is the Prosecutor-General at the Supreme Court. The defendant of the appeal is the Romanian citizen OC
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
08/04/2020

Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartija

Title I: Dignity

Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Sweden / Supreme Court / Ö 6598-19
    Key facts of the case:

    In May 2015, the district court in Bacau, Romania, issued an ordinance on the surrender of OC from Sweden for execution of a sentence in accordance with the European Arrest Warrant Act (europeisk arresteringsorder). The arrest warrant from Romania states that OC in December 2013 was convicted to five years of imprisonment for drug crime and participation in a criminal organisation. The Swedish prosecutor asked the Romanian Prison and Probation Authority (Kriminalvårdsmyndigheten) for an opinion regarding the prison conditions in Romania. The opinion states that no information could be given to where OC would be places i.e. in which Romanian prisons. However, the authority guaranteed that OC would get his own room with the required 2 – 3 square metre area. After this, Solna District Court (Solna tingsrätt) rejected the request to surrender OC to Romania with reference to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court argued that there was a risk that OC would be treated inhuman in the Romanian prisons – a risk that was not eliminated by the information provided by the Romanian authorities. In June 2019, the Swedish prosecutor requested a new trial and referred to another opinion by the Head of the Prison Safety and Regime Department in Romania, regarding the treatment of OC in a Romanian prison. This opinion clarified in which prison OC would end up and also included detailed information about the conditions of this prison. Furthermore, the opinion stated that OC would have a minimum personal space of 3 square meter during his imprisonment.

    The system of the European Arrest Warrant is based on the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust among member states. These principles can only be limited under exceptional circumstances. Such a circumstance may be if the surrender of a person puts him/her at risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court argued that case law of the European Court of Justice (Aranyosi and Căldăraru) clarify the two steps a court can find out whether a person is at risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment according to article 4 of the EU Charter. The national executing judicial authority (verkställande rättslig myndighet) should in a first step find out if there is a risk for inhuman or degrading treatment according to the general conditions of deprivation of liberty. If they find that such a risk exists,’ the authority must, in a second stage, check if that general risk also holds true in the wanted person’s particular circumstances. If the authority finds that there is a real risk for the specific person, the executing judicial authority has the right to reject the request for surrender from another Member State.

     
    Key legal question raised by the Court:
    The key question concerns the conditions in Romanian prisons and if they go against the meaning of Article 3 of the European Convention and Article 4 of the EU Charter. The Supreme Court stated that the conditions in Romanian prisons have been very worrying for a long time. With reference to international reports and decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court argued that there certainly is a general risk for inhuman or degrading treatment in Romanian prisons. However, the legal question raised in this case is whether there is a real risk that OC to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment after surrender from Sweden, despite the declaration made by the Romanian authorities in june 2019.
     
    Outcome of the case:

    The Supreme Court emphasised that the system of the European Arrest Warrant is based on the main principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust among the Member States. In June 2019, the Romanian authorities had provided a declaration regarding the conditions of imprisonment for OC, which stated that he will have a minimum personal space of 3 square meters during his whole imprisonment. Based on the main principles of mutual trust between member states, the Supreme Court

    argued that there is no reason to question the declaration. Consequently, the Supreme Court considered that the surrender of OC to Romania would not mean that there was a risk of violation of article 3 of the European Convention or article 4 of the EU Charter that, in his specific case. There was no reason to reject the request for surrender of OC from Sweden to Romania. The previous ruling of the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) should therefore be amended accordingly.

     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    1. The question in the case is whether it – despite the declaration made by the Romanian authorities in june 2019 – is a real risk that OC will be exposed for inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of article 3 in the European Convention and article 4 of the EU Charter due to the conditions of detainees in Romania. 18. Article 4 of the EU Charter is almost identical to article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The declaration concerning the Charter also states that the right in article 4 corresponds to what is guaranteed in article 3 of the Convention (see OJ C 303, 14.12.2007, p. 18). According to Article 52 (3) of the Charter, it has the same meaning and scope as the European Convention. It also follows from Article 51 (1) that member states are required to comply with article 4 when applying Union law. According to Article 53, the provision may not be interpreted as restricting or infringing on the rights protected by the ECHR. 19. As article 3 (cf. Article 15 (2)) of the European Convention of Human rights, article 4 of the Charter is of an absolute nature. This means that the right may not be weighed against considerations concerning e.g. the functionality in

    judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the EU and in the principles of mutual trust and recognition (cf. the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 15 October 2019, Dorobantu, C-128/18, EU: C: 2019: 857, p. 82 ff.). The European Court of Justice's directive for the procedure for examining whether surrender is in accordance with article 4 of the Charter 23. The court (European Court of Justice) has thus found that the executing judicial authority, under certain conditions, has the right to end the surrender procedure when there is a risk that the wanted person is subjected to such inhuman or degrading treatment referred to in article 4 of the UN Charter. 25. The executing judicial authority shall, in a first step, check whether there is a real risk that the wanted person will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in accordance with article 4 of the Charter due to the general conditions of detention in the issuing member state. This verification shall be carried out on the basis of objective, convincing, precise and up-to-date information. (Aranyosi and Căldăraru p. 89 ff.). 28. Where a declaration (guarantee) has been given, or at least approved, by the issuing judicial authority that the person concerned will not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, the executing judicial authority shall trust in that declaration. In any case, trust must be maintained as long as there is no precise information that can indicate that the circumstances during the detention in a particular institution are in conflict with article 4 of the EU Charter (Generalstaa

    43. The question in this case is whether the prison conditions in Romania are incompatible with article 3 of the European Convention and article 4 of the EU Charter, and thus constitute grounds for not granting surrender. 51. In the light of what has now been said – and based on that the basic principles of mutual trust between member states – there is no reason to question the declaration provided (p. 50). The Supreme Court therefore makes the assessment that a surrender of OC to Romania would not mean that there is a strong presumption in his case for violation of article 3 of the European Convention or article 4 of the EU Charter (cf. p. 21). There is therefore no reason to refuse surrender to Romania of OC for enforcement. The decision of the Court of Appeal shall be amended accordingly.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    9. Frågan i målet är om det – trots den försäkran som sommaren 2019 har lämnats av rumänska myndigheter – på grund av förhållandena för frihetsberövade i Rumänien föreligger en verklig risk för att OC kommer att utsättas för omänsklig eller förnedrande behandling i den mening som avses i artikel 3 i Europakonventionen och artikel 4 i EU:s rättighetsstadga. 18. Artikel 4 i EU:s rättighetsstadga är i det närmaste likalydande med artikel 3 i Europakonventionen. Av förklaringarna avseende stadgan framgår även att rättigheten i artikel 4 motsvarar den som garanteras i artikel 3 i konventionen (se EUT C 303, 14.12.2007, s. 18). Enligt artikel 52.3 i stadgan har den därför samma innebörd och samma räckvidd som i Europakonventionen. Av artikel 51.1 följer vidare att medlemsstaterna är skyldiga att iaktta artikel 4 när de tillämpar unionsrätten. Bestämmelsen får enligt artikel 53 inte tolkas så att den inskränker eller inkräktar på de rättigheter som Europakonventionenskyddar. 19. Liksom enligt artikel 3 (jfr artikel 15.2) i Europakonventionen är den rättighet som garanteras i artikel 4 i stadgan av absolut karaktär. Detta innebär att rättigheten inte får vägas mot överväganden som rör bl.a. funktionsdugligheten hos det straffrättsliga samarbetet inom EU samt hos principerna om ömsesidigt förtroende och erkännande (jfr EU-domstolens dom av den 15 oktober 2019, Dorobantu, C-128/18, EU:C:2019:857, p. 82 ff.).

    EU-domstolens anvisningar för förfarandet vid prövning av om ett överlämnande är förenligt med artikel 4 i rättighetsstadgan 23. Domstolen har således funnit att den verkställande rättsliga myndigheten, under vissa villkor, har rätt att avsluta överlämnandeförfarandet när ett överlämnande riskerar att leda till att den eftersökte personen utsätts för en sådan omänsklig eller förnedrande behandling som avses i artikel 4 i rättighetsstadgan. 25. Den verkställande rättsliga myndigheten ska i ett första steg göra en kontroll av om det finns en verklig risk för att den eftersökte personen utsätts för omänsklig eller förnedrande behandling enligt artikel 4 i rättighetsstadgan på grund av de allmänna förhållandena för frihetsberövade i den utfärdande medlemsstaten. Denna kontroll ska göras på grundval av objektiva, trovärdiga, precisa och vederbörligen aktualiserade uppgifter. (Aranyosi och Căldăraru p. 89 ff.) 28. Om en försäkran (garanti) har lämnats, eller i vart fall godkänts, av den utfärdande rättsliga myndigheten om att den berörda personen inte kommer att utsättas för omänsklig eller förnedrande behandling, så ska den verkställande rättsliga myndigheten fästa tilltro till denna försäkran. I vart fall ska tilltro fästas så länge som det inte finns någon precis uppgift som kan ge vid handen att förhållandena under frihetsberövandet på en viss anstalt står i strid med artikel 4 i EU:s rättighetsstadga (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft p. 112).

    43. I detta fall är frågan huruvida fängelseförhållandena i Rumänien är sådana att de är oförenliga med artikel 3 i Europakonventionen respektive artikel 4 i EU:s rättighetsstadga och därmed utgör grund för att inte bevilja överlämnande. 51. Mot bakgrund av vad som nu sagts – och med utgångspunkt i det grundläggande synsättet om ömsesidigt förtroende mellan EU:s medlemsstater – saknas det skäl att ifrågasätta den lämnade försäkran (p. 50). Högsta domstolen gör därmed bedömningen att ett överlämnande av OC till Rumänien inte skulle innebära att det i hans fall föreligger en stark presumption för kränkning av artikel 3 I Europakonventionen eller artikel 4 i EU:s rättighetsstadga (jfr p. 21). Det finns därför inte grund för att vägra ett överlämnande till Rumänien av OC för straffverkställighet. Hovrättens avgörande ska ändras i enlighet med detta.