Stepien v Circuit Court in Swidnica (Poland)

Where an appeal raising Art. 8 depends on a proportionality assessment, the court should ordinarily have the full relevant factual picture before deciding it. Pending extradition proceedings concerning further warrants may therefore justify adjourning an appeal relating to an earlier warrant. Delay by the judicial authority remains relevant and should be taken into account. The court may adjourn while preserving the appellant’s position and leaving open the way in which the appeal should later proceed.

The appellant appealed in extradition proceedings concerning EAW1 and had permission to appeal on Art. 8 grounds. The judicial authority sought an adjournment because EAW2 contained a defect requiring correction and re-service, and EAW3, concerning a further conviction, had not yet been served. The appellant sought determination of the appeal on EAW1 alone. The central issue was whether the appeal should be decided without the additional criminal conduct being procedurally resolved.

1. The application to adjourn was granted and the appeal was adjourned pending the outcome of proceedings concerning amended EAW2 and EAW3.
2. In an appeal involving an Art. 8 balance, the deciding judge would wish to have the full facts before determining the proportionality assessment. The additional matters included both an accusation and convictions, and could affect the overall picture.
3. It would be contrived to remove from consideration criminal conduct known to exist merely because the related European arrest warrants were not yet procedurally ready. The matters should first be considered by the district judge, with any subsequent appeal then capable of being assessed on the complete factual basis.
4. The judicial authority’s delay in producing or perfecting EAW2, and in discovering the facts relating to EAW3, were relevant factors. The court did not determine the merits of the appellant’s Art. 8 appeal, and gave no firm indication of its likely outcome.
5. The adjournment left all options open and enabled the appellant to remain in the United Kingdom pending determination. The parties were directed to communicate with the court within 21 days after conclusion of the relevant Magistrates’ Court proceedings, indicating their intentions and how the adjourned appeal should proceed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal was adjourned pending proceedings concerning amended EAW2 and EAW3. Permission to appeal on Art. 8 grounds had previously been granted by Sir Wyn Williams.