Decision no. 653 dated 22 June 2017 issued by the Criminal Section of the Supreme Court of Romania.
Decision no. 653 dated 22 June 2017 issued by the Criminal Section of the Supreme Court of Romania - the Supreme Court of Romania ruled on what happens when an extraditable person is detained on the basis of a European arrest warrant and his temporary surrender is requested in order to ensure participation in solving their own judicial remedy
SOURCES OF LAW
The main national source of law in this field is LAW No. 302 of 28 June 2004 on international judicial co-operation in criminal matters.
The Law was republished on the basis of art. III of the Law no. 222/2008 for amending and completing the Law no. 302/2004 regarding the international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 758 of 10 November 2008, giving the texts a new numbering.
This law transposes into national law the provisions of the EU Framework Decisions in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, as Framework Decision 2002/584 / JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, published in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 190 of 18 July 2002, Council Framework Decision 2003/577 / JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, published in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 196 of 2 August 2003, Council Framework Decision 2005/214 / JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, published in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 76 of 22 March 2005 and Framework Decision 2006/783 / JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, published in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 328 of 24 November 2006.
SUPREME COURT'S DECISION
The Supreme Court decided that, according to art. 112 referred to in art. 58 par. (1) to (5) and (7) of Law no. 302/2004, if the execution of the European arrest warrant was ordered and postponement of the surrender to the requested person, the court may admit the request of the authorities of the requesting state for temporary surrender of the requested person serving a custodial sentence and may order temporary surrender for a period specifically determined to ensure that the requested person is involved in solving his own appeal against the conviction decision on the basis of which the European arrest warrant was issued, provided that the requesting State authorities guarantee the return of the requested person in custody, including in the case of the admission of the appeal and the abolition of the conviction. In the present case, it was found that a temporary surrender of the named A was sought in order to participate in the resolution of his objection against the conviction sentence of 4 years in absentia, the judgment underlying the European arrest warrant. Under these circumstances, it is noted that this application entitles the requested person to participate (and possibly to be heard by the issuing authorities) in the resolution of his own appeal against the conviction decision which underlies the issue the European arrest warrant which was the subject of the Court of Appeal's analysis by the said criminal sentence.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION
Following this decision of the Supreme Court, an extremely important precedent has been created regarding the respect for human rights in international judicial co-operation.
The implications of this Decision are to respect the rights enshrined in the European Treaties, namely the right to a fair trial, the effective right of a particular person to defend himself and to participate in a judicial procedure concerning him, as in the right to participate in the appeal judgment of a conviction against him.
Thus, the mechanism of temporary surrender is used in one of the purposes for which it was established, namely to assure an individual his fundamental rights.
0+
