Order made on 6 February 2019
The Prosecution Service
Public Prosecutor’s decision to extradite for criminal prosecution in Latvia upheld
The Latvian authorities had requested that T be extradited for criminal prosecution of a number of counts of fraud. T objected to extradition, referring in particular to the prison conditions and the circumstances surrounding his previous detention in Latvia.
The Supreme Court stated that Section 10h of the Danish Extradition Act should be interpreted in accordance with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. If the authorities in the extradition country have information documenting that there is a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of detained persons in the recipient country, the authorities in the extradition country must assess whether this risk exists for that person, as the execution of an arrest warrant must not imply that the person is subjected to such treatment.
The Supreme Court found that the information available about the conditions in Latvia did not give grounds to conclude that there was a real risk that T, if extradited, would face persecution due to his membership of a particular social group or be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Public Prosecutor’s extradition decision was therefore upheld.
The High Court had reached the same conclusion.