Poland

The Italian Supreme Court upheld surrender to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant issued to enforce a sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment for trafficking in stolen vehicles. It held that generic allegations about Polish detention conditions, supported only by the executive summary of a 2024 CPT report, did not establish a concrete risk of inhuman or degrading treatment requiring supplementary information. Systemic concerns about judicial independence likewise did not justify refusal without specific evidence of an individual violation affecting the tribunal that convicted the requested person. The Court also rejected the objections concerning translation and trial in absentia, noting that the requested person had attended the surrender hearing with an interpreter, had not requested a written translation, and had participated in earlier trial hearings before choosing not to attend subsequent ones. The appeal was dismissed and the surrender order remained effective.

The requested person challenged an order for his extradition to Poland to face a murder allegation arising from a group attack. He argued that the warrant did not adequately distinguish his alleged acts from those of the other participants, making both its factual particulars and the identification of an extradition offence insufficient. The High Court held that the warrant identified the time, place and victim and attributed specific violent acts to the requested person. It refused renewed permission to appeal, finding no realistic prospect of establishing a defect in the warrant or an error in the first-instance assessment.

The requested person challenged his surrender from Italy to Poland for the execution of a sentence concerning tax fraud and accounting offences, arguing that France had previously refused surrender on nationality grounds and had agreed to recognise and enforce the same Polish judgment. The Supreme Court held that the refusal by the French authorities did not preclude execution of the Polish EAW because there was no evidence that Poland had transmitted the judgment and the certificate required by Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA or that enforcement had actually begun in France. A French summons concerning a hearing on possible alternatives to detention could not be treated either as a valid EAW or as a formal request for surrender. Since Poland had confirmed that the EAW remained valid, while remaining willing to consider enforcement of the sentence in France, the appeal was dismissed and surrender to Poland was upheld.

Poland sought the surrender of a person for the execution of an eight-month custodial sentence imposed for failing to maintain a minor child. The requested person argued that the proceedings had been conducted in absentia and that, owing to his long-term residence and social integration in Italy, the Italian courts should refuse surrender and enforce the sentence domestically. The Court of Cassation held that objections concerning lack of knowledge of the foreign proceedings, raised for the first time on appeal and requiring factual findings, were inadmissible. It further held that refusal under Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA requires the issuing State’s consent to transmission and execution of the sentence under Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA; the absence of a positive response from Poland amounted to implicit confirmation that the sentence should be executed in the issuing State, so the appeal was dismissed and surrender confirmed.

The case concerned an execution European Arrest Warrant issued by Poland for the enforcement of custodial sentences. As regards one of the appellate judgments, the requested person had not appeared in person, and the District Court of Amsterdam held, in light of the Khuzdar judgment, that the requirements of article 12(b) OLW were not met. The Court found that there was no circumstance from which it could be inferred that the requested person had been informed of the time and place of the hearing, nor could it be held that he had deliberately avoided official notification. However, the Court decided to refrain from refusing surrender under article 12 OLW, noting that the requested person had appeared at first instance, had caused an appeal to be lodged, knew that appeal proceedings were pending, and had been at least careless in maintaining contact and ensuring his availability for official correspondence. Surrender to Poland was therefore allowed.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court of Łódź-Śródmieście for participation in a criminal organisation, fraud, theft and impersonation of a public official. The Court of Appeal of Turin ordered surrender. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that the EAW did not sufficiently describe his role, the specific contribution allegedly made to the offences, and the dates of commission of some of the alleged crimes. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that, following the 2021 reform of Law No. 69/2005, the EAW must contain the elements necessary for the executing judicial authority to carry out its review, but it is no longer necessary to attach evidence or a detailed statement of the sources of proof. In this case, the warrant sufficiently described the requested person’s alleged participation in an organised criminal group involved in frauds against elderly persons, including the methods used, the purpose of money transfers and the role of the participants. The Court also held that the indication of a time frame for the offences is sufficient where the facts can be placed chronologically and their essential features are clear. The alleged lack of precise dates did not affect the right of defence. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible.

The case concerned an execution European Arrest Warrant issued by Poland for the enforcement of a custodial sentence. The requested person had not appeared in person at the hearing at which a Polish court confirmed an agreement between the prosecutor and the requested person. The District Court of Amsterdam held that such a judicial confirmation decision falls within the scope of article 12 OLW, in light of the Khuzdar judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court found that the summons had been sent to the address provided by the requested person and that his lawyer had confirmed at the hearing that he was aware of the hearing date. Since the requested person had authorised a lawyer who actually conducted the defence, including through a substitute trainee lawyer, the Court held that the requirements of article 12(b) OLW were met and allowed surrender.

Regular assistance and emotional support provided to a former partner suffering from mental health issues are insufficient, absent stable de facto family ties, to establish “family life” protected under Article 8 ECHR in extradition proceedings; furthermore, only exceptionally severe interference with private or family life may justify refusal of extradition on proportionality grounds.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Polish authorities for the prosecution of a Polish national accused of robbery and drug-related offences. The District Court of Amsterdam examined whether surrender would expose the requested person to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR due to detention conditions in the Polish remand regime. Referring to the CJEU’s Dorobantu judgment, the court held that a guarantee of 4 m² of personal living space in a multi-occupancy cell, excluding sanitary facilities, is not in itself sufficient to dispel concerns under Article 3 ECHR, since other material detention conditions — including the amount of time spent outside the cell — must also be assessed. The court therefore reconsidered aspects of its earlier case law and found that the information provided by the Polish authorities was insufficiently concrete to exclude a real risk of rights violations. The proceedings were reopened and additional information was requested from the issuing judicial authority concerning detention conditions.

The requested person was surrendered by Germany to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant subject to the principle of speciality, with the German authorities expressly refusing surrender for the enforcement of a sentence imposed in a separate case. The Polish courts subsequently included that non-custodial sentence in an aggregate custodial sentence. The Supreme Court held that this amounted to the effective enforcement of imprisonment for an offence not covered by the surrender decision and therefore violated the principle of speciality. Since the requested person had not waived that protection, the Court allowed the cassation appeal, quashed the relevant parts of the lower courts’ judgments and discontinued the proceedings concerning the aggregate sentence.

The appellant challenged extradition from the United Kingdom to Poland to serve a sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment for twelve theft offences, relying on his established private life and his role as the daily carer of a partner suffering from multiple sclerosis and worsening mobility problems. Applying Article 8 ECHR and the Supreme Court’s guidance in Andrysiewicz, the High Court held that considerable hardship and disruption to family life did not establish an exceptionally severe impact sufficient to outweigh the public interest in extradition, given the availability of alternative medical, social care and welfare support. The appellant’s fugitive status substantially reduced the weight attributable to the lengthy delay and the private life developed in the United Kingdom. Having considered the fresh evidence of his partner’s deteriorating condition, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the extradition order.

The Regional Court in Łódź denied the extradition request issued by the Republic of Turkey for the execution of 5-year prison sentence for document forgery and misconduct in the prison. The Court deemed the extradition request inadmissible due to lack of double criminality. The Court reasoned that one felony, namely possession of the unauthorized SIM card in the prison, does not have its counterpart in the Polish Criminal Code. The uniqueness of this interpretation rests in the fact that the Court refused to extradite the requested person despite another felony included in the culpable sentence has a counterpart in the Polish law. The Court inferred, therefore, that if any felony included in the culpable sentence and the joint punishment falls outside the scope of double criminality, extradition is inadmissible.

In the context of the execution of a European Arrest Warrant, the failure of the issuing State to answer to the Court of Appeal’s request for consent to the enforcement of the sentence in Italian territory must be regarded as a refusal, since the non-transmission of the judgment and the certificate constitutes implicit confirmation of the request for surrender already made through the issuance of the warrant.

EAW: although flight risk may, by its nature, be assessed more broadly than in ordinary proceedings, it must nonetheless exist and cannot dissolve into a form of “inadmissible presumption”. It must display characteristics of concreteness as well as present relevance, and must be supported by specific reasoning grounded in concrete elements drawn from the requested person’s life. Accordingly, the Italian court cannot base pre-trial detention in custody solely on the seriousness of the alleged offence, the severity of the penalties imposed, or the fact that the arrested person—despite being domiciled in Italy and identified by means of an Italian identity card—has not provided elements capable of excluding such risk (all the more so where the offence was committed many years earlier).

The Regional Court in Radom denied the extradition request issued by the Republic of Turkey for the criminal proceedings for terrorism. The Court deemed the extradition request inadmissible due to three main reasons. Firstly, the requested person possesses the refugee status in Poland, therefore cannot be extradited. The Court underlined that the Republic of Poland is prevented from extraditing any refugee, who may be put under threat due to his political viewpoint. The Republic of Turkey is perceived by the Court as a country in which the political opposition is being fought. Secondly, the current political situation in the Republic of Turkey does not assure the fair trial. Thirdly, due to the type of the alleged felony, the requested person may be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment.

The Regional Court in Radom denied the extradition request issued by the Republic of Peru for the criminal proceedings for drug trafficking. The Court deemed the extradition request inadmissible due to three main reasons. Firstly, the requested person possesses the Polish citizenship, therefore cannot be extradited, especially because no bilateral agreement between Poland and Peru is binding. Secondly, the current situation in the Republic of Peru does not assure the fair trial. This conclusion was reached basing on the report provided by the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thirdly, due to the conditions in the Peruvian prisons, the requested person may be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment.

The Regional Court in Cracow denied the extradition request issued by the Republic of Turkey for the execution of 16-year prison sentence for banking and fiscal frauds. The Court deemed the extradition request inadmissible due to the lacking evidence. The Court reasoned that due to enigmatic descriptions of the alleged felonies it cannot be concluded that the requested person’s conduct is illegal also under the Polish law. Moreover, according to the Polish law, the felonies would have been already barred by limitations. Furthermore, the Court could not have understand the relationship between the two similar sentences rendered by the Turkish court, therefore it encountered certain doubts as to the potential breach of the ne bis in idem principle.

The Regional Court in Warsaw denied the extradition request issued by the Republic of Kirgistan for the execution of a 20-year prison sentence. The Court deemed the extradition request inadmissible due to two main reasons. Firstly, there exists a justified risk that the requested person will be subject to breach of human rights under Article 3 ECHR. The Court reached this conclusion, basing on the reports issued by independent human rights organizations, according to which despite prohibition of torturing and inhuman treatment, both the law enforcement authorities and prison services apply these methods on a regular basis. Moreover, the hygiene conditions, including especially access to medical aid, do not meet international expectations. Secondly, there are substantiated doubts as to the process’s fairness under Article 6 ECHR, including bribery. The Court inferred that due to the ubiquitous bribery, the requested person may be subject to forcing testimony through tortures and deprived of his rights, including access to the legal aid and ability to justify before the court.

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw upheld the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw, affirming the legal admissibility of extraditing the requested person to the Swiss Confederation. The extradition was requested to conduct criminal proceedings regarding offenses equivalent to fraud, receiving stolen goods, and money laundering under Polish law. The defense counsel appealed the initial decision, arguing that handing the requested person over would violate their fundamental rights because the Swiss arrest warrant was issued by a prosecutor rather than a court, thus allegedly lacking independent judicial oversight. The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument, pointing out that under the Swiss Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, a detained person has the right to be promptly brought before a judge who decides on the legality of the detention. The Court emphasized that Switzerland is a democratic state that fully respects human rights, and the arguments presented by the defense were entirely inapplicable to this case.

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw upheld the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw, declaring the extradition of a Nigerian citizen to the United States of America legally admissible. The requested person was sought via an Interpol Red Notice for offenses equivalent to participation in an organized crime group, fraud, and money laundering under Polish law. The defense counsel appealed the decision, alleging a violation of Article 3 and Article 5 of the ECHR and the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. The defense argued that the harsh penalties in the requesting state, combined with potential bias or discrimination based on the requested person's ethnic origin and nationality, posed a risk of inhuman treatment and a violation of his fundamental rights. The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, reasoning that the defense failed to provide objective facts or specific evidence demonstrating a real, individual threat. General assertions about severe penalties in a specific US state or theoretical discrimination are insufficient grounds to refuse extradition. The Court of Appeal in Warsaw upheld the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw, declaring the extradition of a Nigerian citizen to the United States of America legally admissible. The requested person was sought via an Interpol Red Notice for offenses equivalent to participation in an organized crime group, fraud, and money laundering under Polish law. The defense counsel appealed the decision, alleging a violation of Article 3 and Article 5 of the ECHR and the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. The defense argued that the harsh penalties in the requesting state, combined with potential bias or discrimination based on the requested person's ethnic origin and nationality, posed a risk of inhuman treatment and a violation of his fundamental rights. The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, reasoning that the defense failed to provide objective facts or specific evidence demonstrating a real, individual threat. General assertions about severe penalties in a specific US state or theoretical discrimination are insufficient grounds to refuse extradition.