Finland

EAW: only the existence of criminal proceedings pending in Italy against the requested person may be taken into account by the Court of Appeal within the framework of the grounds for postponement of surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69 of 2005, and on the basis of an assessment of expediency in the light of the criteria already identified by this Court. The documentation most recently produced by the appellant cannot be taken into consideration, since it postdates the surrender decision and, in any event, the mere filing of a criminal complaint cannot, as a matter of principle, affect the decision on surrender.

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.

Romania requested the surrender of the requested person from Finland under a European Arrest Warrant for the execution of a five-year custodial sentence. Although general information showed overcrowding and inadequate conditions in Romanian prisons, and the initial information indicated that the requested person would have less than 3 sq.m. of personal space in Focșan prison, Romanian authorities subsequently provided an individualised assurance guaranteeing at least 3 sq.m. of personal space. The Supreme Court held that such an assurance, transmitted through the competent authorities and specifically issued for the case, was reliable and had to be given substantial weight in the absence of precise evidence showing exceptional circumstances capable of undermining it. The Court therefore found no real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter and allowed the surrender to Romania.