Poland

The requested person challenged his surrender from Italy to Poland for the execution of a sentence concerning tax fraud and accounting offences, arguing that France had previously refused surrender on nationality grounds and had agreed to recognise and enforce the same Polish judgment. The Supreme Court held that the refusal by the French authorities did not preclude execution of the Polish EAW because there was no evidence that Poland had transmitted the judgment and the certificate required by Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA or that enforcement had actually begun in France. A French summons concerning a hearing on possible alternatives to detention could not be treated either as a valid EAW or as a formal request for surrender. Since Poland had confirmed that the EAW remained valid, while remaining willing to consider enforcement of the sentence in France, the appeal was dismissed and surrender to Poland was upheld.

Poland sought the surrender of a person for the execution of an eight-month custodial sentence imposed for failing to maintain a minor child. The requested person argued that the proceedings had been conducted in absentia and that, owing to his long-term residence and social integration in Italy, the Italian courts should refuse surrender and enforce the sentence domestically. The Court of Cassation held that objections concerning lack of knowledge of the foreign proceedings, raised for the first time on appeal and requiring factual findings, were inadmissible. It further held that refusal under Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA requires the issuing State’s consent to transmission and execution of the sentence under Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA; the absence of a positive response from Poland amounted to implicit confirmation that the sentence should be executed in the issuing State, so the appeal was dismissed and surrender confirmed.

As long as the European Arrest Warrant has not been suspended, pursuant to Article 7(2) TEU, in respect of the Member State concerned, the possibility of refusing surrender on the basis of systemic deficiencies affecting the independence of the judiciary in the issuing State must be acknowledged—having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 22 February 2022, joined cases C-562/21 and C-563/21—only where the executing judicial authority establishes, on the basis of the submissions made by the requested person, that there are serious and substantiated grounds for believing that, following surrender, the person would face a real risk of a breach of their fundamental right to be tried by an independent tribunal, as guaranteed by Articles 6 ECHR and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The proceedings sentencing the requested individual were not adversarial. The requested individual was present at the first hearing regarding his case and was notified of the adjournment to the hearing at which the judgment was delivered. He did not attend the latter, was not represented by a lawyer, did not receive personal service of the judgment and has no further means of appeal.The extradition request is rejected on optional grounds for refusal.

The proceedings sentencing the requested individual were not adversarial. The requested individual was present at the first hearing regarding his case and was notified of the adjournment to the hearing at which the judgment was delivered. He did not attend the latter, was not represented by a lawyer, did not receive personal service of the judgment and has no further means of appeal.The extradition request is rejected on optional grounds for refusal.