Bartulis v Panevezys Regional Court (Lithuania)

In European Arrest Warrant proceedings, mutual trust between Member States creates a strong presumption that detention conditions comply with fundamental rights. That presumption is rebutted only by objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence establishing substantial grounds for a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

The court must assess the conditions in the prisons where detention is actually intended, taking account of relevant assurances and the issuing state’s practical response to identified deficiencies. A serious and longstanding problem of inter-prisoner violence did not displace the presumption where Lithuania had adopted and implemented a substantial action plan, reduced prison population density and provided assurances.

Three appeals concerned five European Arrest Warrants issued by Lithuania for prosecution or execution of sentences. The appellants challenged extradition on the ground that detention in Lithuanian correctional houses created a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 4 of the Charter.

The District Judge rejected the objections, holding that the evidence did not rebut the presumption of compliance and that Lithuania’s assurances concerning minimum living space were adequate. Bartulis also sought to raise a new mental-health ground under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003. The central issues were whether the prison-condition presumption had been displaced and whether the new ground should be admitted and succeeded.

1. Article 3 risk. The appeals concerning prison conditions were dismissed. The court applied the two-stage approach restated in Dorobantu v Romania and derived from Aranyosi and Căldăraru. First, the requested person must produce objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence of systemic, generalised or local detention deficiencies. Secondly, the court must determine specifically and precisely whether the individual faces a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.
2. The evidence from successive CPT reports established that inter-prisoner violence, informal prisoner hierarchies, dormitory accommodation and low staffing created a genuine potential Article 3 risk. However, the evidence had to be assessed together with Lithuania’s response. The action plan, allocated funding, increased front-line staffing, refurbishment, reduced prison population and removal of alleged hierarchy leaders constituted an adequate, though incomplete, response. The presumption of compliance therefore remained intact.
3. The court was not required to assess every prison in Lithuania. It had to consider the establishments in which the appellants were actually intended to be detained and the effect of the assurances. Since the presumption had not been displaced, the court did not need to rely on the assurances as an answer to the risk. Nevertheless, assurances expressly given to all persons extradited from the United Kingdom had to be honoured, and breach could be significant in future proceedings.
4. Under the duty of candour, a requesting state need not disclose a confidential CPT report before its proper publication. It must not, however, advance factual assertions known to be false or misleading because of information obtained through a CPT inspection or unpublished report. No deliberate misleading by Lithuania was established.
5. Bartulis’s section 25 ground. Permission to appeal on the mental-health ground was refused. The issue could have been raised below with reasonable diligence, and the psychiatric report added little to Bartulis’s existing evidence. In any event, the evidence did not establish the high threshold required by Turner v Government of the USA. Lithuania was presumed to provide adequate healthcare, and the evidence did not show that preventative measures would be ineffective.

• District Judge Jabbitt: In a judgment dated 17 September 2018, rejected the appellants’ article 3 objections and found Lithuania’s assurances concerning living space adequate.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The court dismissed the appeals concerning prison conditions and refused permission for Bartulis to pursue the section 25 ground.