Ruzicka v District Court of Nitra, Slovakia

A European Arrest Warrant must be issued in the form required by Part I of the Extradition Act 2003. A failure to use the appropriate form is fatal to extradition. The correct form depends on whether the requesting state’s criminal process has reached a final and enforceable conviction. A conviction made subject to a timely appeal, which causes the conviction to be annulled or lose validity and leads to a full trial, is neither final nor enforceable. In those circumstances, an accusation warrant remains appropriate, even though a conviction and sentence have been recorded.

The appellant was arrested under an accusation European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court of Nitra. The warrant alleged burglary and sought his extradition for prosecution. At the appeal hearing, the appellant produced documents showing that he had previously received a conviction and a 14-month sentence in Slovakia.

The issue was whether that conviction was final and enforceable, so that a conviction warrant was required, or whether the Slovak criminal process remained incomplete and an accusation warrant was valid.

1. Validity of the warrant. The court applied the principle in Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] AC 1 that a warrant which does not conform to section 2 is not a Part I warrant. An extradition order founded on an invalid warrant is liable to be quashed. The jurisdictional point could be raised on appeal because the magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction depended on a valid warrant, consistent with Boudhiba v Central Examining Court No 5 of the National Court of Justice, Madrid [2007] 1 WLR 124.
2. Accusation and conviction warrants. Section 2 distinguishes an accusation warrant, issued for prosecution, from a conviction warrant, issued for sentencing or service of a sentence after conviction. The relevant question is whether the foreign conviction is final and enforceable under the requesting state’s law.
3. Effect of the Slovak procedure. The documents showed that the appellant’s conviction would be annulled, and the criminal process would proceed to a full hearing, if he lodged a timely appeal. His response was treated by the Slovak court as a valid appeal, and the conviction did not become valid. The conviction was therefore contingent, rather than final or enforceable.
4. The court followed the approach in Usti Nad Labem Regional Court, Czech Republic v Janiga [2010] EWHC 463 (Admin), and applied the reasoning concerning non-final foreign convictions in Calderelli v Court of Naples [2008] UKHL 51. The accusation warrant was in the correct form. There were no bars to extradition, and the appeal was dismissed. Elias LJ agreed.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: ordered the appellant’s extradition to Slovakia after an extradition hearing on 11 February 2010.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against extradition under [2010] EWHC 1819 (Admin).