Minister for Justice and Equality v LM
An executing authority may refuse to surrender a person under a European arrest warrant where systemic deficiencies in the independence of the issuing state's judiciary create a real risk that his right to a fair trial will be breached.
Facts
LM was sought by Poland under European arrest warrants for drug trafficking offences. He was arrested in Ireland, and argued that his surrender would expose him to a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice, because of reforms of the Polish judicial system which, according to the European Commission, threatened the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in Poland. The Irish High Court asked the Court of Justice how it should approach the question.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the executing judicial authority must first assess, on the basis of objective, reliable, specific and properly updated material, whether there is a real risk, connected with a lack of independence of the courts of the issuing member state on account of systemic or generalised deficiencies, of the fundamental right to a fair trial being breached. If so, it must then assess specifically and precisely whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, there are substantial grounds for believing that, following his surrender, the requested person will run that risk. Only if both conditions are satisfied may it refrain from giving effect to the warrant. The Irish courts later ordered LM's surrender.
Related cases on extradition
- Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)
- HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, [2013] 1 AC 338
- Lord Advocate v Dean [2017] UKSC 44, [2017] 1 WLR 2721
- Norris v Government of the United States of America [2008] UKHL 16, [2008] 1 AC 920
- Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2005] UKHL 67, [2006] 2 AC 1
- Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), [2016] 1 WLR 551
- Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198
Studying immigration and asylum law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
