Poland

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Polish authorities for the prosecution of a Polish national accused of robbery and drug-related offences. The District Court of Amsterdam examined whether surrender would expose the requested person to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR due to detention conditions in the Polish remand regime. Referring to the CJEU’s Dorobantu judgment, the court held that a guarantee of 4 m² of personal living space in a multi-occupancy cell, excluding sanitary facilities, is not in itself sufficient to dispel concerns under Article 3 ECHR, since other material detention conditions — including the amount of time spent outside the cell — must also be assessed. The court therefore reconsidered aspects of its earlier case law and found that the information provided by the Polish authorities was insufficiently concrete to exclude a real risk of rights violations. The proceedings were reopened and additional information was requested from the issuing judicial authority concerning detention conditions.

In the context of the execution of a European Arrest Warrant, the failure of the issuing State to answer to the Court of Appeal’s request for consent to the enforcement of the sentence in Italian territory must be regarded as a refusal, since the non-transmission of the judgment and the certificate constitutes implicit confirmation of the request for surrender already made through the issuance of the warrant.

Extradition may be refused where surrender would give rise to a real risk of violations of fundamental rights under the ECHR, including where the requested person may have already effectively served the sentence underlying the request or where surrender would entail a disproportionate interference with personal liberty; issues may also arise under Article 7 ECHR where extradition relies on the retroactive application of subsequent treaty frameworks to offences arguably time-barred under the previous legal regime. Furthermore, a cassation appeal is admissible only in the presence of a manifest and serious violation of law and does not extend to a reassessment of facts or evidence.