CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 mai 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 130 May 2010 Stapleton v. Ireland (dec.) - 56588/07 Decision 4.5.2010 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Surrender of suspect to fellow member State despite alleged risk of unfair trial: inadmissible   Facts – This case concerned the scheme for the surrender of suspects and convicted persons established by the European Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member States. The scheme replaces extradition procedures between member States. In 2005 the applicant was arrested in Ireland under a European Arrest Warrant that had been issued the previous year in the United Kingdom in respect of fraud offences he was alleged to have committed there between 1978 and 1982. The United Kingdom authorities maintained that they had only become aware of the applicant’s whereabouts in 2001 as he had been living overseas. The applicant opposed his surrender on the grounds that the delay of well over twenty years between the commission of the alleged offences and his arrest had created a real risk that he would not receive a fair trial. That argument was rejected by the Irish Supreme Court, which found, inter alia , that the applicant had a remedy for the delay in the United Kingdom courts and it would be demonstrably more efficient and appropriate for that issue to be dealt with there. Law – Article 6: The facts of the applicant’s case did not disclose substantial grounds for believing that there would be a real risk that the applicant would be exposed to a flagrant denial of his Article   6 rights in the United Kingdom, which, as a Contracting Party, had undertaken to abide by its Convention obligations and to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined therein. Delay in prosecuting a crime did not, necessarily and of itself, render criminal proceedings unfair. The applicant’s submission that all he should have been required to establish in the Irish courts was a real risk of unfairness in the United Kingdom, rather than a real risk of a “flagrant denial” of his rights, was rejected for three reasons. Firstly, such an approach would run counter to the principles that had been established in Soering v.   the United Kingdom (no.   14038/88, 7   July 1989) and the Court’s subsequent jurisprudence. Secondly, the Irish Supreme Court had rightly found that on the facts it would be more appropriate for the United Kingdom courts to hear and determine the applicant’s complaints of unfairness. Thirdly, the applicant’s submission that he was entitled to have his Convention right protected on the first relevant occasion (in this case before the Irish courts) was misplaced in view of the United Kingdom’s status as a Contracting Party to the Convention. This was not a case involving non-derogable rights under Articles   2 and   3 of the Convention and a risk of onward expulsion to a non-Contracting State without a proper examination of the applicant’s claim or any proper opportunity to apply to the European Court and request interim measures. The applicant had various remedies available in the United Kingdom courts in respect of any unfairness, such as an application at the outset for a stay on the grounds that he would not receive a fair trial. If such an application proved unsuccessful he could then apply to the European Court under Articles   6 and   34 of the Convention. Finally, the applicant’s submission that pre-trial detention in the United Kingdom would inevitably follow his surrender was neither complete nor convincing as he would have the immediate possibility of applying for bail and raising all relevant criteria. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes