Denmark

Under Turkish Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, extradition proceedings must comply with procedural safeguards, including proper notification of the extradition request and clarification of whether the requested person consents to simplified extradition procedures. Failure to inform the requested person regarding consent-based extradition constitutes a procedural defect affecting defence rights.In extradition proceedings initiated upon a request from Denmark concerning organised-crime-related offences, the defence also relied on Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, alleging risks arising from organised criminal retaliation and insufficient state protection in the requesting State.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the procedural defect required correction but ultimately upheld the admissibility of extradition.

Ukraine requested the extradition of a Ukrainian national from Denmark for prosecution in relation to four alleged burglaries. Although several international reports documented structural deficiencies in Ukrainian prisons, including overcrowding, poor material conditions and problems aggravated by the ongoing war, the Ukrainian authorities provided specific assurances concerning the requested person’s detention, including placement in designated institutions in western Ukraine, at least 4 sq.m. of personal space and protection against treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Applying the ECtHR principles governing diplomatic assurances, the Supreme Court held that the guarantees had to be assessed in light of both their nature and content and the requested person’s individual circumstances, and concluded that they were sufficient to exclude a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The Court therefore upheld the District Court’s decision and granted extradition to Ukraine.

The requested person was detained in Greenland pursuant to an international arrest warrant issued by Japan and remained in custody while the Danish Ministry of Justice examined Japan’s request for extradition for prosecution concerning acts allegedly committed during an anti-whaling action in 2010. The Supreme Court held that, when deciding on detention intended to secure extradition, the courts must not only examine the statutory conditions for detention but must also conduct a preliminary review of whether the conditions for extradition appear to be satisfied; a full examination of the extradition request, however, is reserved for the later stage following the Minister of Justice’s decision. The Court found that there was sufficient suspicion, a concrete risk of absconding and no basis at that stage for concluding that the extradition requirements were not met; it further held that continued detention was proportionate because the Ministry’s examination had progressed within a reasonable time and the seriousness of the alleged conduct justified the duration of the measure. The judicial review afforded to the requested person, including the opportunity to challenge the evidence, complied with Article 5 ECHR, and the decisions continuing detention were therefore upheld.

Moldova requested the extradition from Denmark of a Romanian-Moldovan national for prosecution, and concerns arose as to whether the prison conditions to which the requested person would be exposed were compatible with Article 3 ECHR and Articles 4 and 19(2) of the EU Charter. In response to requests for supplementary information, the Moldovan authorities provided detailed individualised assurances identifying the prisons and specific cells in which the requested person would be detained, guaranteeing at least 4 sq.m. of personal space and setting out material conditions, medical care and measures against inter-prisoner violence. Despite extensive reports documenting serious structural deficiencies in Moldovan prisons, the Supreme Court held that there was no basis for doubting the credibility of the Moldovan authorities’ statement concerning the specific conditions that could be expected for the requested person. It therefore found no real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and upheld the decision granting extradition to Moldova.

Romania sought the surrender of the requested person from Denmark under a European Arrest Warrant for the execution of a custodial sentence. The requested person had originally been convicted of fraud in December 2010 and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment without being personally present at trial; the sentence was subsequently reduced to six years following changes to Romanian criminal law. The Supreme Court held, applying the CJEU judgment in Tupikas, that compliance with the safeguards governing decisions rendered in absentia had to be assessed by reference to the December 2010 judgment, since that was the decision which had finally determined the requested person’s guilt following an examination of the merits. Although the Romanian authorities stated that she had been aware of the proceedings and represented by a lawyer of her choice, the material before the Court showed that at the relevant trial she had instead been represented by court-appointed counsel who had had no communication with her. It had therefore not been established that she had authorised that lawyer to defend her. The requirements for surrender following a conviction in absentia were consequently not satisfied, and surrender to Romania was refused.

Latvia requested the surrender of the requested person from Denmark under a European Arrest Warrant for prosecution in relation to numerous alleged fraud offences. The requested person opposed surrender, relying on prison conditions in Latvia, alleged ill-treatment during an earlier period of pre-trial detention and his status as an ethnic Russian non-citizen of Latvia. Referring to the CJEU judgments in Aranyosi and Căldăraru, the Supreme Court held that, where the executing authorities possess objective, reliable, precise and duly updated information showing a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the issuing Member State, they must determine whether such a risk exists for the individual concerned. The available material, however, showed significant improvements in Latvian detention conditions, including a reduction in prison overcrowding and the introduction of a minimum standard of 4 sq.m. of personal space in multi-occupancy cells. The Court found that the evidence did not establish a real risk that the requested person would be subjected either to persecution on account of his ethnic background or to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter. The surrender decision was therefore upheld.

Russia requested the extradition of the requested person from Denmark for prosecution, and the person was detained in Denmark while the extradition request was being examined. At the same time, the Danish immigration authorities decided that he should be transferred to France under the Dublin Regulation for examination of his asylum application. The Supreme Court held that the planned Dublin transfer did not in itself preclude continued detention for extradition purposes. At the time of the District Court’s decision, the extradition proceedings had not been concluded and it remained legally possible for the Danish prosecution authority to decide in favour of extradition to Russia. Having regard to the nature of the case and the requested person’s lack of ties to Denmark, the Court therefore held that the statutory conditions for continued detention remained satisfied. The subsequent release and transfer to France did not deprive the requested person of a legal interest in obtaining judicial review of the earlier detention decision.