→ 🇬🇧 United Kingdom

Where, under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the need to secure the physical presence of the requested person in criminal proceedings appears, in abstract terms, compatible with the objectives of the cooperation instrument, this does not exempt the judicial authority of the executing State from carrying out the substantive assessments entrusted to it, namely compliance with the principle of proportionality. It is therefore necessary to assess the impact of surrender on the person’s family life, on the relationship with minor children and on their needs for care and protection, especially where the person is the sole parent of two very young children and there exists, in abstract terms, the possibility of securing the person’s presence by means of a video-link (excluded by the UK court not because such a tool is unavailable or prohibited under domestic law, but on discretionary grounds of expediency).

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the United States for the prosecution of the requested person for alleged wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in connection with the electronic filing of false tax returns. The requested person challenged the admissibility of extradition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the documents submitted by the United States were insufficient, that the facts for which extradition had been declared admissible were not clearly identified, and that the requirement of double criminality was not met. The Advocate General considered that the extradition documents were sufficient, including as to U.S. jurisdiction and the applicable statutory provisions. Although the description of the facts in the lower court’s decision was not entirely clear, the Advocate General considered that this could be remedied by reading the decision as referring to the facts set out in the supporting affidavit. The Advocate General further found that the alleged conduct corresponded under Dutch law to fraud and forgery, and recommended dismissal of the appeal; the Supreme Court followed that conclusion under Article 81(1) RO.