Free At Last? Detention, The European Arrest Warrant As Well As Julian Assange

Steve Peers

“Bianca Jagger is here!”

I had simply arrived at a coming together inwards the House of Lords, to give a speak on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) in addition to human rights. I idea that having the famous human rights activist inwards the audience when I spoke would last the most exciting thing that could occur to me that day. But I was wrong.

“Bianca Jagger wants to enquire you a question, before nosotros start!”

My pump skipped a shell every bit the beautiful activist walked slowly, catwalkishly, across the room inwards my direction. Finally, she was correct inwards forepart of me. My pump stopped beating entirely. And in addition to so she asked me her question:

“Will y'all last speaking for very long?”

Needless to tell I afterwards gave i of my shortest talks always – although I suspect that it seemed endless to Ms. Jagger. Indeed, I imagine that for her, listening to my speak was comparable to the lengthy periods of pre-trial detention which roughly people confront on the footing of EAWs.

This brings me to Lanigan: a fundamental judgment on lengthy pre-trial detention in addition to EAWs, issued past times the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concluding year. It seems only appropriate that I am discussing this illustration rather belatedly. On the other hand, though, it is really timely to select the chance to hash out also the relevance of this judgment to the United Nations opinion (released today) on the ‘arbitrary detention’ of Julian Assange – who is also facing an EAW. And simply every bit I promised Ms. Jagger, I won’t detain my beautiful readers for really long.

The Lanigan judgment

Unfortunately EAWs are often issued for the most piddling reasons. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 carpenter, removing a wardrobe door until he got paid. (What Would Jesus Do?) The theft of a piglet. And my personal favourite: the friend of a friend who came to a household political party in addition to took someone else’s tin flame of beer. That concluding illustration makes me pino for the homecoming of the decease penalty.

Yet the Lanigan illustration usefully reminds us that EAWs are also issued for the most serious of crimes. Mr. Lanigan was wanted on murder charges inwards the UK, which issued an EAW to the Irish Gaelic Republic. He was detained inwards Republic of Ireland spell he fought the execution of the EAW. Finally, the Irish Gaelic courts decided to enquire the CJEU if the months he spent fighting the EAW were a breach of the deadlines to execute it – every bit ready out inwards the European Union Framework Decision which created it – or of human rights law. This was the get-go Irish Gaelic reference to the CJEU on criminal issues, next the expiry on the limits of the CJEU’s criminal constabulary jurisdiction inwards Dec 2014 (for to a greater extent than on that transitional issue, catch here).

According to the CJEU, the continued detention of Mr. Lanigan pending the EAW did non invalidate the EAW itself. Nor was at that spot an obligation to unloosen him. First of all, the Court insisted that the fourth dimension limits inwards the legislation (60 days to execute an EAW, amongst a possible xxx solar daytime extension) had to last complied amongst strictly. This followed its before ruling inwards the Forrest case, which concerned the British schoolteacher who had fled to French Republic amongst an underage schoolgirl.

But in addition to so the Court ate its previous words. The work was that inwards this case, strict compliance amongst the fourth dimension limits conflicted amongst the underlying obligation to execute the EAW. The Court referred to its many previous rulings insisting on the express exceptions to that latter obligation. So it gave preference to the underlying rule, ruling that the EAW remained valid i time the deadline expired: the ‘time limit’ was non really a fourth dimension bound at all. (I wouldn’t propose students, lawyers, journalists or many others to select the same approach to deadlines.)

It got worse for Mr. Lanigan. The CJEU ruled that the expiry of the deadlines did non hateful that Republic of Ireland had to unloosen him from prison theater either. It pointed out that the rules on detention inwards the Framework Decision were really vague: national judicial authorities receive got to create upward one's hear on detention; the fugitive may last given bail, if the authorities select steps to halt him or her absconding; in addition to the number is basically discipline to national law. The European Union rules do tell that fugitives must last released from custody after the execution of an EAW, if the deadlines to give upward the mortal to the State which issued the EAW are non complied with. But inwards contrast, at that spot is no such obligation if a State misses the deadline to execute the EAW inwards the get-go place.  

Yet if there’s no existent deadline to execute an EAW, in addition to no obligation to unloosen a fugitive from jail because that ‘time limit’ is a legal fiction, people could effectively halt upward facing indefinite detention without trial. Rightly realising that this was unacceptable, the Court, for the get-go time, gave roughly grudging honor to the many references to human rights ready out inwards the EAW law. In this case, that meant the rules on detention were discipline to Article six of the European Union Charter on Fundamental Rights, which had to last applied consistently amongst the rules on detention ready out inwards Article five ECHR. So the relevant illustration constabulary of the European Court of Human Rights applied: fugitives tin flame only last detained if the EAW physical care for is beingness carried out amongst ‘due diligence’. The national courtroom has to consider all the factors, including whatever lax conduct past times the Irish Gaelic authorities, the send of the fugitive himself, the possible judgement (severe inwards this case), the gamble of absconding in addition to the huge overrun of the deadlines.

The Assange case

In Lanigan, the CJEU wasn’t called upon to bargain amongst the 2 detention issues that most oftentimes arise inwards practise every bit regards EAWs: (a) the lengthy pre-trial detention that fugitives are often discipline to inwards the issuing State after they are surrendered there, in addition to (b) the pitiable detention atmospheric condition which they sometimes confront there. The CJEU volition before long dominion on the latter issue, inwards the cases of Aranyosi in addition to Caldararu.

Nor, obviously, was it called upon to bargain amongst the peculiar circumstances of Mr. Assange: fleeing into a 3rd State’s embassy, to escape the execution of an EAW, because the investigation which motivated the issuing of the EAW was allegedly politically motivated, in addition to a farther extradition asking from the USA was peradventure looming. Today nosotros receive got a novel twist: the catch of a United Nations trunk that his ‘detention’ inwards the diplomatic mission is ‘arbitrary’.

How does European Union constabulary apply to this issue? In fact, European Union constabulary issues were discussed inwards the before Great Britain litigation, inwards item inwards the Supreme Court judgment. At that time, the Great Britain courts were, similar the Irish Gaelic courts, unable to enquire the CJEU questions almost European Union criminal laws adopted before the entry into forcefulness of the Treaty of Lisbon. Now they can. So Assange could arguably convey a fresh challenge inwards the Great Britain courts to the execution of the EAW inwards low-cal of the United Nations ruling. He could either (a) asking the Great Britain courts (at whatever level) to enquire the CJEU questions almost the EAW constabulary (the CJEU volition probable give an emergency ruling, inside almost 3 months), or (b) litigate dorsum upward to the Supreme Court, in addition to so become to the European Court of Human Rights to complain if he loses his case.

What’s the probable outcome? The European Court of Human Rights is unremarkably corking to select into occupation concern human relationship the catch of other human rights bodies (for an exception, catch the RMT case); but the CJEU is not. In the Grant case, it rubbished the catch of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in addition to inwards the well-known Kadi draw of illustration law, it deemed that the United Nations Security Council had non provided plenty legal protection when listing people every bit terrorist suspects.

Applying the Lanigan illustration to the facts of Assange, at that spot is a rigid obligation upon the Great Britain to execute the EAW, which manifestly remains valid. His continued ‘detention’ also remains valid, since he has the obvious intention to abscond. There are human rights arguments: the gamble of an unfair trial inwards Sweden or the USA, in addition to the ‘detention conditions’ inwards the embassy. As I noted above, the CJEU is unremarkably dismissive of human rights arguments inwards the EAW context, although at that spot was a nod to ECHR illustration constabulary inwards Lanigan. On this issue, things should last clearer after the judgments inwards Aranyosi in addition to Caldararu, which nosotros tin flame facial expression before Easter.

It mightiness last better, from Assange’s perspective, to contend all the means i time again through the Great Britain courts without asking for a CJEU reference, in addition to and so caput to the ECtHR inwards Strasbourg. That’s non exclusively upward to him, though: the Great Britain regime could enquire the courts to send questions to the CJEU. If he does larn to Strasbourg, the ECtHR mightiness last torn betwixt its green enthusiasm to endorse the locomote of international human rights bodies, in addition to its traditional deference to the CJEU on human rights matters inside the orbit of European Union law. The Assange saga mightiness receive got awhile to run yet.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 25

JHA4: chapter II:3

Photo credit: www.dailymail.co.uk

Share this post