Click here

to book for the

ELA annual conference 2012

The ELA is a growing international forum. We offer access to lawyers for people and foreign governments involved in extradition proceedings. We  organise training and conferences on extradition, and share with members a growing database of information about extradition law and practice, including national and international legislation and judgments. To register as a member of the ELA, please click here.

Members of the ELA receive regular e-mail updates of UK judgments and legislation. As the ELA expands, members will receive extradition judgments and legislation from abroad. 

The information presented in this material has been developed from sources believed to be reliable, but it should not be construed as legal or other professional advice. The Extradition Lawyers' Association accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this material and recommends the consultation with competent legal counsel and/or other professional advisors before applying this material in any particular factual situations.

Brzeski (1 May 2012) - bailii link to Brzeski v Regional Court in Gdansk, Poland [2012] EWHC 1138 (Admin)

Passage of time - section 14 - [1] deliberate flight - only period after point of flight excluded from consideration - Kakis - Gomes and Krzyzowski not concerned with pre-flight delay - post-flight delay only to be left out of account - [2] no evidence of injustice or oppression suffered as a result of pre-flight delay - Wood - causal link between oppression and delay required - Oncel not authority for contrary proposition - passage of time not considered as a discrete issue - analysis of issue of passage of time would have been approached differently in Oncel following Gomes - [3] defendant now facing Article 6 ECHR compliant re-trial upon surrender - in circumstances where re-trial would not have been ordered in UK - not oppressive - Loucks 

Voros (No. 2) (30 April 2012) - ballii link to Voros v The District Courts of Sopron, Gyor and Zalaegerszeg, Hungary [2012] EWHC 1079 (Admin)

Appeal heard by single judge - multiple EAWs - same offence in two EAWs - investigation still in progress - whether accused - Asztaslos - extradition sought for all offences for purpose of investigation to decide which to prosecute - Requesting State requested to elect which EAW to pursue [2012] EWHC 518 (Admin) - Requesting State declining to make election until defendant is surrendered - EAW continuing to seek extradition for all offences for an invalid purpose - section 2(3) - Meizoso-Gonzales - Paschayan - difference between questioning and investigation as part of the prosecution process and such questioning and investigation to decide whether to prosecute

Molotchko (26 April 2012) - bailii link to Molotchko v Ukraine (2012) App. No. 12275/10 (European Court of Human Rights, Fifth Section)

[1] violation of Article 5.1(f) ECHR - detention pending decision on extradition - must be in accordance with domestic law and in good faith - domestic law must comply with principles of legal certainty and non-arbitrariness - Saadi - place and conditions of detention pending extradition must be appropriate - length of detention pending extradition must be reasonable - Ukrainian domestic extradition law up to 23 June 2010 not sufficiently accessible, clear or precise - not circumscribed by adequate safeguards against arbitrariness - Svetlorusov - Kamyshev - [2] violation of Article 5.1(f) ECHR - new Article 5 compliant laws governing extradition passed on 23 June 2010 - delay in applying to defendant - Mokallal - [3] violation of Article 5.4 ECHR - Ismoilov - Khudyakova - Svetlorusov - entitlement to determination of procedural and substantive requirements for detention - must be capable of leading to release - must be afforded soon after taken into custody and at reasonable intervals thereafter - new Article 5(4) compliant laws governing extradition passed - no transitional arrangements - unclear whether new laws applicable to persons already in detention - obligation on State to ensure detention in compliance with new laws - delay in applying to defendant - [4] violation of Article 5.1(f) ECHR - detention pursuant to new Article 5 compliant laws - irregularities in extradition law may undermine lawfulness of detention - Bozano - no deficiencies affecting defendant's detention - fact that impediment to extradition ultimately found to exist not capable of restrospectively rendering detention pending extradition unlawful, where intention of State throughout was to extradite and no impediment was established before his release - Mokallal - not always necessary for Article 5.4 proceedings to incorporate Article 6 guarantees but must be judicial and adversarial in character, must ensure equality of arms and must be conducted with due diligence - extradition enquiry of 17 months unreasonable - proceedings not actively and diligently pursued - Chahal - Rule 39 interim measures do not require and cannot provide basis for continued detention - Dubovik - [5] violation of Article 5.4 ECHR - new Ukrainian extradition laws - conduct of appellate proceedings in absence of defendant, but in presence of lawyers, not a breach of equality of arms - examination of risks in requesting State and objections to extradition intrinsic to Article 5.1(f) actions taken with a view to extradition - but fact that merits of underlying extradition request considered by different court to one considering lawfulness of detention not a violation of Article 5.4 - Mokallal - omission to consider reasonableness of length of detention pending extradition by domestic court is a violation of Article 5.4

Wilby & Halliday (19 April 2012) - bailii link to Wilby v The Municipal Court Prague, Czech Republic; Halliday v The Municipal Court Prague, Czech Republic [2012] EWHC 1006 (Admin)

Appeal heard by single judge - provision of medical care in Czech prisons - defendant's evidence of prior experiences - [1] section 25 - high threshold - Reece-Edwards - approaching Article 3 threshold - Mikolajczkyk - Kolanowski - difficulties experienced previously with access to medication arose from bureaucratic difficulties not wilful neglect - no systemic failure - not likely to be repeated - [2] Article 3 ECHR - assumption of compliance - Targosinski - burden on defendant to disprove assumption beyond reasonable doubt - mere possibility of breach insufficient - Tworkowski - to engage Article 3 in medical care cases, defendant must be at critical stage of fatal illness before removal to a State without necessary medical facilities will amount in inhumane treatment - D v UK - condition must have reached such a critical stage that there are compelling humanitarian grounds for not removing - N v UK - past failures not relevant unless they have a bearing on future risk - Berners - extradition may not be refused as a means of punishing past failures 

Woolley (10 April 2012) - bailii link to Woolley v United Kingdom (2012) App. No. 28019/10 (European Court of Human Rights, Fourth Section)

Specialty - extradition to UK from Switzerland - extradition requested and granted to serve remainder of 9-year sentence - request also making reference to failure to pay confiscation order and liability to imposition of additional 4-year term of imprisonment in default of payment - extradition granted for 9-year sentence only - extradition granted subject to reservation that default term of imprisonment could not be imposed - Article 14 European Extradition Convention 1957 - default term activated - [1] detention in breach of rule of specialty capable of violating Article 5(1) ECHR - compliance with domestic law entails a breach of Article 5 - section 151 - no violation of specialty in present case - default term part of a confiscation order and therefore part of the sentence for the offence for which extradition was ordered - Crowther - enforcement of a confiscation order does not involve the bringing of a new criminal charge under Article 6(1) ECHR - [2] failure of court to abide by reservations of extraditing State not rendering detention arbitrary - no bad faith or intention to deceive

The ELA is pleased to recieve judgments from other countries thought to be of interest to ELA members    

Skaftouros (20 December 2011) - Skaftouros v U.S., No. 11-0462-cv, 2011 WL 6355163 (2d Cir.)

In a case involving extradition to Greece from the U.S., a U.S. Appellate Court clarified that, in a habeas corpus proceeding challenging an extradition order, the petitioner bears the burden of proof and the U.S. court must not engage in an inquiry into the demanding  country's compliance with its own laws. In 2008 Greece requested the U.S. to extradite Dimitrios Skaftouros, a Greek citizen, for alleged complicity in a murder in 1990.  The Magistrate Judge granted his extradition.  Skaftouros then filed a habeas petition with the District Court.  Skaftouros argued extradition was improper on the grounds that (i) the warrant for his arrest was defective under Greek law because it was not signed by the Clerk of the court in Greece, and (ii) by the time of the extradition proceedings the twenty year Greek statute of limitations applicable to his offense had expired and was not tolled by his leaving Greece immediately after the offense.  Interpreting a recent  case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Sacirbey v. Guccione, 589 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2009), to mean that, in the habeas proceeding, it was the government's burden to disprove Skaftouros' claims, the trial court granted the petition and ruled  that Skaftouros should not be extradited. The Second Circuit disagreed and upheld extradition.  The court first explained that "Sacirbey did not impose a general burden of proof on the Government in the context of a habeas proceeding" (emphasis added). Instead, the Second Circuit found that the "Government, on behalf of the demanding country, does indeed bear the burden of proof" at the initial extradition proceeding; however, this burden does not extend to the "the habeas stage, after a presumptively valid certificate of extradition has already been issued."  Thus, Skaftouros bore the burden of proving that the extradition order should be overturned.  Furthermore, the Second Circuit held that in deciding whether the requirements of the extradition treaty have been violated, a court is limited to reviewing whether there has been compliance with the provisions of the treaty itself, and must avoid engaging in an analysis of the demanding country's law and procedure.  Assessing Skaftouros' warrant and statute of limitations arguments under these standards, the Second Circuit held that Skaftouros had not met his burden of proof that the arrest warrant was invalid or that the statute of limitations had run within the meaning of the extradition treaty, noting that Skaftouros could raise his arguments concerning the warrant and limitations period to the Greek court.  The appellate court thus overturned the District Court's granting of the habeas petition and granted extradition.