Kuchta v District Court of Czestochowa (Poland)

For the purposes of an extradition warrant, the enforceable judgment under Article 8(1)(c) of the Framework Decision is the judgment imposing the sentence. The fact that the sentence was suspended, and later activated, does not alter the date of that judgment. A warrant does not substantially depart from Article 8 merely because attempts to use its fax number were unsuccessful, where the warrant provides other contact details and there is no evidence that communication through them would have been impossible.

The claimant appealed against a decision of Senior District Judge Workman, sitting at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 12 November 2009, ordering his extradition to Poland to serve a 12-month custodial sentence. The sentence had been imposed on 4 April 2003 and suspended, then ordered to take effect on 15 February 2006.

The claimant argued that the European Arrest Warrant was defective because it stated the date of the enforceable judgment as 14 April 2003 and contained a fax number which did not successfully connect. The Divisional Court considered whether those matters made the warrant unenforceable.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Divisional Court, comprising Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Calvert-Smith, upheld the decision to extradite.
2. Article 8(1)(c) of the Framework Decision requires evidence of an enforceable judgment. The judgment which imposed the custodial sentence was the enforceable judgment. Its date was therefore 14 April 2003. The subsequent suspension and later activation of the sentence did not affect that conclusion.
3. The court agreed with the Senior District Judge that the warrant contained the information required by Article 8. Although attempts by the claimant’s solicitors to send a fax had been unsuccessful, the evidence did not establish that the fax number was incorrectly recorded. It showed only that the receiving machine was not functioning on those occasions.
4. In any event, there had been no substantive departure from Article 8(1). The warrant included the judicial authority’s address, telephone number and email address, and there was no evidence that communication by those means would have been impossible.
5. The court accordingly concluded that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Senior District Judge Workman ordered extradition on 12 November 2009.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed on 24 February 2010.