Shirnakhy & Anor v Permanent Duty Director, Weiden Local Court Germany & Anor

For the purposes of Article 6 of the Framework Decision, the authority competent to issue a European arrest warrant is determined by the law of the issuing state. The notification made under Article 6(3) is declaratory. It identifies the competent authority but does not confer jurisdiction and is not a precondition to the validity of a warrant.

Courts in the executing state should not ordinarily adjudicate on the domestic law of the issuing state to determine whether its courts possess issuing powers. Mutual recognition and mutual trust require respect for the issuing state’s judicial institutions unless there is a proper basis for doubt. A reference to the Court of Justice was unnecessary where the meaning of Article 6 was acte clair.

Two applicants renewed applications for permission to appeal against extradition orders made by District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Each applicant was wanted in Germany under a European arrest warrant issued by an Amtsgericht, or local court.

The applicants argued that the local courts lacked power under German law to issue European arrest warrants and had not been notified as competent authorities under Article 6(3) of the Framework Decision. The first applicant also relied on section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003. The second applicant relied on sections 25 and 21A of that Act. The High Court considered whether any of the grounds disclosed an arguable basis for permission to appeal.

1. Permission refused. The court refused permission to appeal to both applicants on all grounds.
2. Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision makes the issuing judicial authority the authority competent to issue a European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of the issuing state. The choice of the relevant judicial bodies is therefore a matter of national law, subject to the requirement that the body be judicial and independent of executive influence.
3. The local courts were independent judicial bodies. The concern identified by the Court of Justice in OG and PI, joined cases C-508/18 and C-82/19/PPU, concerned public prosecutors exposed to executive influence and did not apply to the Amtsgerichte.
4. The Framework Decision’s system is based on mutual recognition and mutual trust. It was not contemplated that courts in the executing state would adjudicate on the domestic law of the issuing state to determine whether a particular court had been vested with issuing powers. The evidence, including the expert reports, did not provide a sound basis for doubting the competence of the German local courts.
5. Article 6(3) requires a Member State to inform the General Secretariat of the Council which authorities are competent under its law. The notification is declaratory. It is neither the source of the issuing authority’s power nor a precondition to the validity of a European arrest warrant.
6. The meaning of Article 6(1) and (3) was acte clair. A reference under Article 267 TFEU was unnecessary. The remaining grounds were not pursued or disclosed any arguable case.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Zani’s extradition orders were challenged by renewed applications for permission to appeal. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Sir Duncan Ouseley. The Divisional Court refused permission to appeal on all grounds.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 5 September 2019 District Judge Zani ordered the extradition of both applicants to Germany.