Lakatos v District Court of Prague, Czech Republic

Where a European arrest warrant is clear on its face and contains the necessary information, the requested person cannot ordinarily invite the executing court to investigate whether the warrant is factually correct. A challenge that the sentence has already been served, or that the warrant contains an error, should be made to the issuing judicial authority. An adjournment should be refused where there is no realistic prospect that further time will produce conclusive or convincing evidence capable of establishing that the warrant is erroneous.

The appellant appealed against an order of the District Judge directing his extradition to the Czech Republic under a European arrest warrant. The warrant sought enforcement of the remaining ten months and 15 days of a 15-month sentence imposed for six theft offences.

The appellant maintained that he had already served the sentence and that the warrant was therefore erroneous. He also sought an adjournment to obtain further evidence. The central issues were whether the Administrative Court could examine the alleged error in the warrant and whether the appeal should be adjourned.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court refused the requested adjournment and dismissed the appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order.
2. Where a European arrest warrant is clear on its face and contains the necessary information, the executing court is not entitled to go behind the warrant. The authorities cited, including Asztalos v Hungarian Court and Robert Thompson v the Public Prosecutor of Boulogne, established that limitation.
3. The appellant’s contention that he had already served the sentence did not provide a basis for the Administrative Court to investigate the accuracy of the warrant. If correct, the contention had to be raised before the District Court at Prague, which was the proper forum.
4. The other points in the notice of appeal could not succeed. They had not been raised before the District Judge and, in any event, could not succeed in the present court.
5. The sentence issue had been raised fairly and squarely below. Approximately eight weeks had elapsed since the District Judge refused an adjournment, but there was no reason to suppose that a further adjournment would produce conclusive or convincing proof that the warrant was wrong. Further delay would therefore serve no useful purpose.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed. The requested adjournment was refused.