Norway

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Greek authorities against the founder and administrator of an NGO active in the field of migration, who was accused of participation in a criminal organization, facilitating unlawful entry, and facilitating unlawful residence of third-country nationals in Greece. The requested person argued that his activities were humanitarian in nature and that the prosecution was aimed at silencing his criticism of Greek migration practices. The Hålogaland Court of Appeal held that the conduct described in the arrest warrant did not satisfy the requirement of double criminality under Norwegian law, noting that the requested person had been present in Norway at the time of the alleged acts, thereby triggering the territoriality-based double criminality rule under section 8(1)(k) of the Arrest Order Act. The court further found that several aspects of the alleged conduct were protected under Norway’s obligations arising from the Refugee Convention and international human rights law. It also identified concrete indications that the prosecution entailed a real risk of interference with the requested person’s freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR, referring to documented concerns regarding the misuse of criminal proceedings against migration human rights defenders in Greece. The request for surrender was therefore unanimously refused.

The case concerned an appeal against an order for extradition to Norway to serve a sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment for an aggravated drug offence involving the storage of a large quantity of heroin. The appellant, a Norwegian national with settled status in the United Kingdom, argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his and his family’s Article 8 ECHR rights, relying in particular on the serious developmental needs of his youngest child, the health needs of other children, and the practical and emotional burden that would fall on his wife. The High Court admitted fresh evidence concerning the child’s autism diagnosis and the family’s updated circumstances, and carried out a fresh Article 8 balancing exercise. It accepted that extradition would have a serious detrimental impact on the family, especially the youngest child, but held that the public interest in extradition carried very substantial weight because the appellant was a fugitive, had deliberately avoided serving a lengthy sentence, and had been convicted of a serious Class A drugs offence. The appeal was dismissed, although the Court deferred the date on which the extradition order would take effect to allow statutory services time to put support in place for the child.

A Polish national sought by Poland for prosecution on four burglary charges challenged his surrender on the ground that deficiencies affecting the independence of the Polish judiciary created a risk of a violation of Article 6 ECHR. The Supreme Court’s Appeals Selection Committee acknowledged that the independence of Polish courts and judges was threatened and subject to increasing pressure, but held that systemic or generalised deficiencies alone were insufficient to prevent surrender. A concrete and individual assessment was required to establish a genuine risk of a flagrant denial of justice amounting to a destruction of the very essence of the right to a fair trial. As no case-specific circumstances suggested that the requested person would be denied a fair trial, the appeal was dismissed.

The requested person, a Rwandan national who had lived in Norway as a refugee since 1999 with his wife and three children, was sought by Rwanda for prosecution on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity committed in 1994. The Supreme Court considered whether extradition would conflict with fundamental humanitarian considerations, having regard in particular to Article 8 ECHR and the best interests of the children under the Norwegian Constitution and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It held that, although the children’s interests weighed against extradition, the proportionality assessment had to take account of the exceptional gravity of the alleged offences, the interest in prosecuting serious crimes in the State where they were committed, and the importance of international criminal justice cooperation. The Court therefore found no grounds for giving the children’s interests absolute priority and concluded that fundamental humanitarian considerations did not prevent extradition to Rwanda.

Under Article 705(1) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, the Italian judicial authority must not confine itself to a merely formal review of the documentation attached to the extradition request, but must ascertain whether the reasons underlying the requesting State authority’s assessment of the well-founded nature of the accusations are set out therein. This requirement is satisfied where the Court has properly examined the documentation submitted by the requesting State and found that sufficient evidentiary elements exist in relation to the offences concerned, which are criminal offences under both legal systems.