🇫🇮 Finland →

The requested person, detained in Finland pursuant to a Belgian European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution, challenged her continued detention and argued that a monitored travel ban should have been imposed instead. The Supreme Court held that Finnish courts may use a monitored travel ban to secure execution of an EAW surrender decision, but must assess case by case whether such a less intrusive measure is sufficient in light of the risk of absconding and the principle of proportionality. Although the requested person had lived in Finland for several years and had three minor children, the seriousness of the alleged offences, the established flight risk and the fact that detention had lasted only two days justified continued detention. The Court therefore held that a monitored travel ban would not have been sufficient to secure surrender and that the detention order was lawful, proportionate and not unreasonable.

Romania requested the surrender of the requested person from Finland under a European Arrest Warrant for the execution of a five-year custodial sentence. Although general information showed overcrowding and inadequate conditions in Romanian prisons, and the initial information indicated that the requested person would have less than 3 sq.m. of personal space in Focșan prison, Romanian authorities subsequently provided an individualised assurance guaranteeing at least 3 sq.m. of personal space. The Supreme Court held that such an assurance, transmitted through the competent authorities and specifically issued for the case, was reliable and had to be given substantial weight in the absence of precise evidence showing exceptional circumstances capable of undermining it. The Court therefore found no real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter and allowed the surrender to Romania.

Romania requested the surrender of the requested person from Finland under a European Arrest Warrant for the execution of a four-year custodial sentence. The Supreme Court held that the allocation of less than 3 sq.m. of personal space in the semi-open regime at Braila Prison gave rise to a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter. It further held that this presumption could be rebutted only if the relevant mitigating criteria were satisfied cumulatively, including that the reduction in personal space was short, occasional and minor and accompanied by sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell. The fact that cell doors remained open during the day did not make the period spent in overcrowded accommodation short or insignificant, and the Court therefore refused surrender because there were reasonable grounds to suspect a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

Turkey requested the extradition from Finland of a Lithuanian citizen for the enforcement of a custodial sentence, and the requested person opposed extradition on the ground that Turkish prison conditions exposed him to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Supreme Court first held that EU citizenship did not in itself prevent extradition because the requested person was merely visiting Finland and could not be regarded as permanently resident there. As regards prison conditions, however, the Court found that objective and reliable Council of Europe material supported the existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 19 of the EU Charter and Article 3 ECHR, while Turkey failed to provide the requested individualised information concerning the prison in which the person would be detained and the conditions there. The Court therefore held that the extradition request could not be granted.

Russia requested the extradition of a dual Lithuanian-Russian citizen from Finland for the enforcement of a custodial sentence imposed in Russia. Following the CJEU’s preliminary ruling in Case C-247/17, the Supreme Court held that an EU citizen who has exercised the right to free movement and is permanently resident in Finland must, for the purposes of extradition for sentence enforcement, receive the same treatment as a Finnish national. Assessing the requested person’s residence, family ties, social integration and conduct in Finland as a whole, the Court found that he was permanently resident and integrated into Finnish society. Since Finnish law prohibits the extradition of Finnish citizens, the extradition request could not be granted.