→ 🇬🇧 United Kingdom

The UK requested that Portugal surrender a Portuguese national accused of murder. At the time the international arrest warrant was issued, the EU notification made on behalf of Portugal under Article 603(2) of the EU‑UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement stated that Portugal would only surrender Portuguese nationals, on a reciprocal basis, in cases of terrorism or organised crime. When the requested person was arrested, a new notification was already in force, which no longer restricted the surrender of Portuguese nationals in those cases.The Portuguese Supreme Court held that, under the rules governing the temporal application of extradition law, the relevant notification was the one in force when the international arrest warrant was issued. Consequently, Portugal could not grant the surrender of one of its own nationals in a case that did not involve terrorism or organised crime.

The application in Italy of a custodial measure for the purpose of executing an international arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom, pursuant to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed on 24 December 2020, in relation to criminal proceedings pending before its judicial authorities, does not violate the ne bis in idem principle where, on the basis of the same warrant, a custodial measure has already been ordered by another State—namely, Poland—but the person concerned has in the meantime absconded from it. This is because, notwithstanding the existence of two enforcement measures relating to the same arrest warrant, only a single set of criminal proceedings is pending against the person in the issuing State.

The requested person applied for bail while awaiting a committal hearing on the United Kingdom’s request for her extradition for alleged theft offences. The High Court held that its power to grant bail under section 97(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code was circumscribed by the express prohibition applicable to persons arrested under the Extradition Act in section 95(1)(c). Bail remained possible only within the limited statutory exception for juveniles or sick or infirm persons, and the general High Court provision could not be used to circumvent that restriction. The Court added that, even assuming a broader statutory or inherent power existed, bail in extradition proceedings should be granted only for special reasons; as none were established, the application was dismissed.