Poland

The UK Supreme Court considered whether, in extradition cases based on conviction warrants, courts may take into account the possibility of early release under the law of the requesting State when assessing proportionality under Article 8 ECHR.The appellant was sought by Poland to serve a two‑year sentence for fraud. She argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with her private and family life, partly because she might be eligible for early release under Polish law.The Court reviewed conflicting approaches in domestic case law and held that the mere possibility of early release is relevant but carries little weight. Courts in the requested State should not attempt to predict the likelihood of early release, as this would involve speculative assessment of foreign law and undermine principles of international comity.Only in rare and exceptional cases, supported by clear evidence, may a court attach greater weight to early release prospects. Ultimately, the Court endorsed a cautious approach: acknowledging early release as a factor but generally giving it minimal significance in the Article 8 proportionality balancing exercise.Although the extradition warrant was withdrawn (as the sentence had effectively been served), the Court ruled on the legal issues due to their general importance.

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.

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.