Belgium

Brazil requested the extradition of the requested person from Belgium for the enforcement of a final sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment for attempted homicide. The Belgian Council of State suspended the ministerial decision authorising extradition, finding serious grounds concerning both the adequacy of the decision’s reasoning on limitation of the sentence and, principally, the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR arising from the requested person’s medical condition and access to adequate healthcare in Brazilian prisons. The Court held that the authorities had failed to take account of relevant medical evidence and to dispel doubts raised by recent, objective material concerning detention conditions and access to medical care in Brazil. Given the potential exposure of the requested person to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR, the Court found the urgency requirement satisfied and ordered the immediate suspension of the extradition decision.

Where multiple applications for house arrest are filed within a short timeframe, the Court of Appeal may legitimately reject the subsequent requests by referring to the reasoning already set out in previous decisions, provided that no new and relevant elements have been introduced. In such circumstances, defence arguments relating to the requested person’s personal or professional situation, or to their ties with the national territory, may be deemed insufficient to alter the prior assessment of custodial needs—especially where the Court has already highlighted a concrete risk of absconding or the existence of transnational support networks making alternative measures inadequate.

The requested person, detained in Finland pursuant to a Belgian European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution, challenged her continued detention and argued that a monitored travel ban should have been imposed instead. The Supreme Court held that Finnish courts may use a monitored travel ban to secure execution of an EAW surrender decision, but must assess case by case whether such a less intrusive measure is sufficient in light of the risk of absconding and the principle of proportionality. Although the requested person had lived in Finland for several years and had three minor children, the seriousness of the alleged offences, the established flight risk and the fact that detention had lasted only two days justified continued detention. The Court therefore held that a monitored travel ban would not have been sufficient to secure surrender and that the detention order was lawful, proportionate and not unreasonable.