The Netherlands will extradite no-one to Poland under European Arrest Warrant

Share

Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…

More

The Regional Court in Amsterdam has already submitted a second enquiry to the Court of Justice of the EU regarding the performance of a European Arrest Warrant to Poland. Until the receipt of an answer from the CJEU, no person suspected or convicted of a crime by a court in Poland will be extradited from the Netherlands.



The International Chamber of Legal Aid of the Regional Court in Amsterdam decided to suspend the extradition of suspects to stand trial in Poland and convicts for the execution of their sentences in Poland in all cases regarding a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) at the request of Polish courts.

 

This applies to both citizens of Poland and of other EU countries (in practice, most cases will apply to Polish citizens).

 

The Regional Court in Amsterdam is the only one in the Netherlands that considers EAW cases.

 

It submitted a second preliminary reference question to the CJEU on 3 August 2020 because of doubts regarding the performance of an EAW to Poland.

 

It asked the CJEU whether it could perform an EAW to Poland, if Poland already lacked systemic guarantees of independence of the judiciary at the time that the Polish court issued the request to extradite a person to execute a sentence of imprisonment.

 

The performance of the EAW in all pending and future proceedings at the request of Polish courts has been suspended until the CJEU responds to both questions.

 

This is a breakthrough decision within the European Union.

 

This is the first time that a court in an EU Member State has decided that the suspension of the performance of an EAW to Poland would be of a systemic nature.

 

The courts in the Netherlands, Germany, Slovakia, Spain, and Ireland have so far been deciding to suspend the performance of a European Arrest Warrant case by case.

 

The first question to the Court of Justice of the EU

 

The International Chamber of Legal Aid of the Regional Court in Amsterdam suspended the extradition to Poland of a Polish citizen accused of smuggling narcotics from the Netherlands to Poland on 31 July 2020.

 

It asked the Court of Justice of the European Union whether suspects could be extradited to stand trial in Poland under a European Arrest Warrant because of doubts as to the independence of the courts in Poland.

 

The Dutch court cited political pressure on the ordinary courts in Poland since 2017, including the interference of the Minister of Justice in the appointment and dismissal of presidents and vice-presidents of the courts, as well as the tightening of the model of disciplinary liability for judges, as the reason for its doubts.

 

According to the Regional Court in Amsterdam, the changes that have taken place in the judiciary in Poland mean that it can no longer be considered independent of the executive and legislative authorities.

 

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 

The article was published in Polish at OKO.press



Author


Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…


More

Published

September 4, 2020

Tags

Supreme Courtdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawjudicial independenceDisciplinary ChamberPolandEuropean CommissionjudgesNational Council of the JudiciaryZbigniew ZiobroCourt of JusticeCourt of Justice of the EUConstitutional TribunalAndrzej DudaEuropean Uniondisciplinary systemIgor TuleyaMinister of Justicepresidential electionsjudiciarydemocracyJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsprosecutorsCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Arrest WarrantCOVID-19disciplinary commissionerAdam BodnarOSCEEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiPresidentProsecutor Generalfreedom of expressionLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJHungaryNational Prosecutorelectionsacting first president of the Supreme CourtMay 10 2020 electionsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAW2017freedom of assemblyFreedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice CommissionEU budgetConstitutioncriminal lawC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionMarek SafjanKamil ZaradkiewiczGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiOrdo IurisPresident of PolandMałgorzata ManowskaJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramTHEMISMaciej NawackiLex Super OmniaPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaBelgiumNetherlandsNational Public ProsecutorPiotr Schabdemocratic backslidingdecommunizationNext Generation EUPrime MinistervetopoliceJulia PrzyłębskaLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropereportArticle 7European ParliamentZiobroSupreme Administrative CourtconditionalityPM Mateusz MorawieckiEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawMinistry of JusticecoronavirusPiSWojciech Hermelińskiresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresAndrzej ZollPKWMałgorzata Gersdorfinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of the Republic of PolandLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekdefamationcourtsOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekAK judgmentSimpson judgmentEU law primacyForum Współpracy SędziówTVPmediapublic broadcasterAdam Tomczyńskiimmunitymutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamBogdan ŚwięczkowskiPrzemysław Radzikthe Regional Court in WarsawCouncil of EuropeUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miteracriminal proceedingspopulisminterim measuresViktor OrbanOLAFautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentJózef IwulskiGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUJustice Defence Committee – KOSC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justicepublic opinion pollSupreme Court President2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskijudgetransferPechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatehuman rightstrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill