Czech Republic

The requested person was arrested in Italy on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Czech Republic for the execution of a six-year prison sentence concerning several property-related offences and a driving offence. The Court noted that one of the underlying conducts did not appear to satisfy double criminality under Italian law and that one offence had already been covered by an earlier 2020 surrender from Italy to the Czech Republic, without any apparent waiver of the principle of speciality or subsequent request for extension of surrender. It therefore requested further information from the Czech authorities concerning the EAW, the exact sentence to be served, the duration of pre-trial detention and the possible waiver of speciality. Although the arrest was validated, the Court ordered the requested person’s immediate release, finding no concrete flight risk in light of her Italian citizenship, long-standing residence, family and employment ties in Italy and the fact that she had not absconded after becoming aware of the Czech judgment.

The court ordered the detention of a naturalized United States citizen pending extradition to the Czech Republic to serve a six-year sentence for tax evasion following a conviction in absentia that became final in 2000. Applying the presumption against bail in extradition proceedings, it held that the absence of flight risk is a condition precedent to considering whether special circumstances justify release, rather than one factor to be balanced against such circumstances. The requested person’s departure shortly after receiving notice of criminal charges, subsequent use of a different name, material misrepresentations to immigration authorities and the court, and lack of substantial family or financial ties established a flight risk notwithstanding his longstanding residence and friendships in the United States. The court distinguished Chapman and Bowman, in which the absence of flight risk had been established before special circumstances were considered. Having found a flight risk, it granted the Government’s motion to detain without determining whether special circumstances justified bail, despite the lengthy interval between the conviction, extradition request and arrest.

EAW: following the amendments introduced to Article 18-bis of Law No. 69 of 22 April 2005 by Article 18-bis of Decree-Law No. 69 of 13 June 2023, the Court of Appeal, in order to verify the requested person’s stable integration within the national territory as a ground for refusing surrender, is required - on pain of nullity - to indicate the specific statutory indicators and the relevant assessment criteria provided by that provision; accordingly, the failure to assess even one of such indicators amounts to a violation of law, subject to review by the Supreme Court .