UKSC 71
On appeal from:  EWHC Admin 2771
Bucnys (Appellant) v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania (Respondent)
Sakalis (Appellant) v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania (Respondent)
Lavrov (Respondent) v Ministry of Justice, Estonia (Appellant)
JUDGMENT GIVEN ON
20 November 2013
Heard on 16 and 17 July 2013
James Lewis QC
(Instructed by Kayders Solicitors)
(Ministry of Justice, Lithuania)
Julian Knowles QC
(Instructed by Crown Prosecution Service)
James Lewis QC
(Instructed by EBR Attridge LLP)
(Ministry of Justice, Lithuania)
Julian Knowles QC
(Instructed by Crown Prosecution Service)
|Appellant (Ministry of Justice, Estonia)
Julian Knowles QC
(Instructed by Crown Prosecution Service)
Alun Jones QC
(Instructed by Kaim Todner Solicitors Ltd)
LORD MANCE (with whom Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson agree)
The bases of the requests
Extradition Act 2003 and Framework Decision
"Part 1 warrant and certificate
(1) This section applies if the designated authority receives a Part 1 warrant in respect of a person.
(2) A Part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant which is issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory and which contains
(a) . , or
(b) the statement referred to in subsection (5) and the information referred to in subsection (6)
(5) The statement is one that
(a) the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued has been convicted of an offence specified in the warrant by a court in the category 1 territory, and
(b) the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being sentenced for the offence or of serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention imposed in respect of the offence.
(6) The information is
(a) particulars of the person's identity;
(b) particulars of the conviction;
(c) particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence;
(d) particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence, if the person has not been sentenced for the offence;
(e) particulars of the sentence which has been imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence, if the person has been sentenced for the offence.
(7) The designated authority may issue a certificate under this section if it believes that the authority which issued the Part 1 warrant has the function of issuing arrest warrants in the category 1 territory.
(8) A certificate under this section must certify that the authority which issued the Part 1 warrant has the function of issuing arrest warrants in the category 1 territory.
(9) The designated authority is the authority designated for the purposes of this Part by order made by the Secretary of State...."
"31(1). Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include:
(a) facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the member states, including, where appropriate, cooperation through Eurojust, in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;
(b) facilitating extradition between member states; .".
"(5) The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between member states and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between member states should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice.
(6) The European arrest warrant provided for in this Framework Decision is the first concrete measure in the field of criminal law implementing the principle of mutual recognition which the European Council referred to as the 'cornerstone' of judicial cooperation. .
(8) Decisions on the execution of the European arrest warrant must be subject to sufficient controls, which means that a judicial authority of the member state where the requested person has been arrested will have to take the decision on his or her surrender.
(9) The role of central authorities in the execution of a European arrest warrant must be limited to practical and administrative assistance."
Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it
1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a member state with a view to the arrest and surrender by another member state of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.
2. Member states shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.
3. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.
Determination of the competent judicial authorities
1. The issuing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the issuing member state which is competent to issue a European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that State.
2. The executing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the executing member state which is competent to execute the European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that state.
3. Each member state shall inform the General Secretariat of the Council of the competent judicial authority under its law.
Recourse to the central authority
1. Each member state may designate a central authority or, when its legal system so provides, more than one central authority to assist the competent judicial authorities.
2. A member state may, if it is necessary as a result of the organisation of its internal judicial system, make its central authority(ies) responsible for the administrative transmission and reception of European arrest warrants as well as for all other official correspondence relating thereto.
Member state wishing to make use of the possibilities referred to in this article shall communicate to the General Secretariat of the Council information relating to the designated central authority or central authorities. These indications shall be binding upon all the authorities of the issuing member state.
Content and form of the European arrest warrant
1. The European arrest warrant shall contain the following information set out in accordance with the form contained in the Annex:
(a) the identity and nationality of the requested person;
(b) the name, address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address of the issuing judicial authority;
(c) evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the scope of articles 1 and 2;
(d) the nature and legal classification of the offence, particularly in respect of article 2;
(e) a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person;
(f) the penalty imposed, if there is a final judgment, or the prescribed scale of penalties for the offence under the law of the issuing member state;
(g) if possible, other consequences of the offence.
Transmission of a European arrest warrant
1. When the location of the requested person is known, the issuing judicial authority may transmit the European arrest warrant directly to the executing judicial authority.
2. The issuing judicial authority may, in any event, decide to issue an alert for the requested person in the Schengen Information System (SIS).
3. Such an alert shall be effected in accordance with the provisions of article 95 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of controls at common borders. An alert in the Schengen Information System shall be equivalent to a European arrest warrant accompanied by the information set out in article 8(1).
For a transitional period, until the SIS is capable of transmitting all the information described in article 8, the alert shall be equivalent to a European arrest warrant pending the receipt of the original in due and proper form by the executing judicial authority."
Status of designation under article 6 and of SOCA certification under section 2(7)
"it is clear that in the present state of development of the common area for justice, mutual confidence in the common area for justice and the operation of the EAW will not be advanced unless the courts of the executing state scrutinise requests for surrender under the EAW with the intensity required by the circumstances of each case. ."
Later, he said:
"46. Although the approach in Enander is one that will ordinarily apply, the designation under article 6 does not, in our view, always compel the recognition by another member state as conclusive, if the authority is self evidently not a judicial authority within the meaning of that broad term in the Framework Decision. It is of some interest to note in the light of our observation at para 37 on the status of a Ministry of Justice that in 2007 the Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs in the Report on the Evaluation of the Transposition of the Framework Decision stated that the designation by some states directly or indirectly of the Ministry of Justice as a judicial authority was contrary to the terms of the Framework Decision. However there appear to have no instances where the Commission has taken action in respect of a body that should not have been designated as a judicial authority.
47. For example, if a warrant was issued by a Ministry of Justice which the member state had designated as an authority under article 6, it would not, in our view, be a valid EAW under the Framework Decision. The principles of mutual recognition and mutual confidence which underpin the common area for justice would not require the recognition of such a warrant, as it would self evidently not have been issued by a body which, on principles universally accepted in Europe, was judicial. In our view a national judge within the European Union is bound to uphold the principles of mutual recognition and mutual confidence for the reasons we have given at para 17; public confidence in the EAW would only be undermined by the recognition of an EAW issued by a Ministry of Justice in contradistinction to an EAW issued by a judge or prosecutor.
48. It was accepted by Miss Montgomery QC (who appeared for the prosecutor) that if circumstances arose where it could be said that the person issuing the EAW was not a judicial authority, the designating certificate issued by SOCA would not be conclusive. It would have to be challenged by judicial review. She was right to accept that the certificate was not conclusive, as under section 2(8) of the 2003 Act the function entrusted to SOCA is to certify that the issuing authority has the function of issuing EAWs. It does not certify that it is a judicial authority."
"38. True it is that the certificate must be certifying that the issuing authority has been designated by the law of the requesting state as the competent judicial authority for the purpose of issuing such warrants and that the requesting state has given notice to this effect to the General Secretariat of the European council pursuant to article 6(3) of the Framework Decision, but this is not the same in my judgment as certifying that such designated authority is as a matter of fact a judicial authority within the meaning of section 2(2).
39. Hence in my judgment it must be open, the grant of the certificate under section 2(7) notwithstanding, to this appellant to raise on this appeal (as he could have done before the District Judge) the issue whether the warrant was an invalid Part 1 warrant on the grounds that the purported issuing authority was not a judicial authority within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Act."
Status and interpretation of Framework Decision
Section 2(7) of the 2003 Act
Meaning of section 2(7)
"95.1. Data on persons wanted for arrest for extradition purposes shall be entered at the request of the judicial authority of the requesting contracting party.
2. Before issuing an alert, the contracting party shall check whether the arrest is authorised under the national law of the requested contracting parties. If the contracting party issuing the alert has any doubts, it must consult the other contracting parties concerned.
The contracting party issuing the alert shall send the requested contracting parties by the quickest means possible both the alert and the following essential information relating to the case:
(a) the authority which issued the request for arrest;
(b) whether there is an arrest warrant or other document having the same legal effect, or an enforceable judgment;
(c) the nature and legal classification of the offence;
(d) a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place and the degree of participation in the offence by the person for whom the alert has been issued;
(e) in so far as is possible, the consequences of the offence. ."
The Schengen alert system thus operates through data entered at the request of a domestic judicial authority, but sent by one contracting state to another.
"(2) The reference in section 2(2) to an arrest warrant issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory is to be read:
(a) as if it were a reference to the alert issued at the request of the authority, and
(b) as if the alert included any information sent with it which relates to the case.
(3) In consequence of subsection (2), this Act has effect with these modifications
(a) in sections 2(7) and (8) . for 'authority which issued the Part 1 warrant' substitute 'authority at the request of which the alert was issued'; ."
The effect of section 212 is thus that sections 2(7) and (8) must, in the context of article 95 Schengen alerts be read:
"(7) The designated authority may issue a certificate under this section if it believes that the authority at the request of which the alert was issued has the function of issuing arrest warrants in the category 1 territory.
(8) A certificate under this section must certify that the authority at the request of which the alert was issued has the function of issuing arrest warrants in the category 1 territory."
"21 In contrast, the EEC Treaty, albeit concluded in the form of an international agreement, none the less constitutes the constitutional charter of a Community based on the rule of law. As the Court of Justice has consistently held, the Community treaties established a new legal order for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals (see, in particular, the judgment in Van Gend en Loos (Case 26/62)  ECR 1). The essential characteristics of the Community legal order which has thus been established are in particular its primacy over the law of the member states and the direct effect of a whole series of provisions which are applicable to their nationals and to the member states themselves."
"It may be interesting to recall here that, as far as Community law is concerned, and certainly where the provisions of the Community Treaty are concerned, the Court of Justice does not accept arguments of subsequent practice at all. The Court in such cases has recourse to the standard phrase that 'mere practice' cannot change the treaty".
Cited in support are French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Case C-327/91)  ECR I-3641 and the Court of Justice's Opinion 1/94  ECR I-5267. In the former, the issue was the extent of the Commission's powers to conclude agreements with third countries, under article 228 EEC which provided for such agreements to be negotiated by the Commission and concluded by the Council after consulting the Parliament "subject to the powers vested in the Commission ("reconnues ΰ la Commission") in this field". The Commission argued that its powers might be derived from previous practice of the respective Community institutions, to which the Court observed (para 36) that "a mere practice cannot override the provisions of the Treaty". Likewise, the court held in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Communities (Case 68/86) ECR 855, para 24, and reiterated in its Opinion 1/94  ECR I-5267 in relation to suggested external competence in the field of GATs (the General Agreement on Trade in Services) that "a mere practice of the Council cannot derogate from the rules laid down in the Treaty and cannot, therefore, create a precedent binding on Community institutions with regard to the correct legal basis" (para 52), that, it would, in the field of TRIPs (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights), enable the Community institutions to escape the internal constraints to which they are subject in relation to procedures and to rules as to voting (para 60) and that "Institutional practice in relation to autonomous measures or external agreements adopted on the basis of article 113 cannot alter this conclusion" (para 61).
"That interpretation is also in conformity with the view common to all the member states, none of which has adopted legislation [consistent with the interpretation which the court rejected]" (para 13)
"If the national law concerned provides that the pre-condition to the issue of a conviction EAW by the ministry of justice is that there must be not only an enforceable judgment and sentence but also a request from the sentencing court that a conviction EAW be issued, then the scope for executive interference is much reduced if not entirely eliminated." (para 98)
This postulates a situation in which the ministry's decision to issue a conviction European arrest warrant has by law to be and is firmly founded on a judicial decision by the responsible court that such a warrant is appropriate. Consistently with this approach, both Ministries of Justice sought in their submissions and evidence to meet the criteria suggested by Aikens LJ.
The evidential material
The Lithuanian position
"2. European arrest warrants regarding citizens of the Republic of Lithuania or other persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment by enforceable judgments in the Republic of Lithuania and who have absconded from serving the sentence in another member state of the European Union shall be issued and competent authorities of that state shall be contacted by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania.
3. The procedure for issuing a European arrest warrant and surrendering the person under the European arrest warrant shall be defined by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania and by the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania."
"I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
4. The Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania shall issue the European arrest warrant with a view to arrest a person who has been punished by custodial sentence but who has gone into hiding from the enforcement of this sentence. In this case the European arrest warrant shall be issued under the following circumstances:
4.1. when the remainder of the sentence to be served is of four months or of longer term;
4.2. when there is a ground to believe that the convicted person may be located in the member state of the European Union or other State, which applies the surrender procedure of the persons concerned pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant. .
RECOURSE FOR ISSUING EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT
7. If the case has been heard in the trial and the judgement of conviction rendered in absentia of the accused, the court shall send a copy of the enforceable judgement of conviction whereby a sentence of imprisonment has been imposed together with the draft European arrest warrant (except section (i)) to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania after taking into consideration the criteria for issuing a European arrest warrant laid down in paragraph 12 of the Rules.
8. If the convicted person, who has not been arrested until the court judgement became enforceable, absconds from the execution of the custodial sentence imposed on him by the court's judgment, or if the convicted person while serving his custodial sentence runs away from the correctional institution or fails to return there, the request to issue the European arrest warrant shall be submitted to the Ministry of Justice by the institution executing the sentence after taking into consideration the criteria for issuing a European arrest warrant laid down in paragraph 12 of the Rules. A copy of the enforceable judgement of conviction whereby a sentence of imprisonment has been imposed and the draft European arrest warrant (except section (i)) shall be enclosed with the request. .
9. When the court renders a Ruling to quash the suspension of the sentence execution, a Ruling to quash either a conditional early release from custodial sentence or conversion of the remainder of the sentence into a more lenient punishment or a Ruling to refer the person released conditionally from the correctional institution to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment in the correctional institution, the court shall forward a copy of the aforesaid Ruling together with the draft European arrest warrant (except section (i)) to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania after taking into consideration the criteria for issuing a European arrest warrant laid down in paragraph 12 of the Rules.
III. ISSUING OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT
12. Upon receiving the documents set out in Chapter II of these Rules, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuanian or the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania shall analyse the above documents and, if there are all preconditions listed in paragraphs 3 or 4 of the Rules, shall issue the European arrest warrant taking into consideration the severity and type of the offence committed and the suspected, accused or convicted person's personality. If the information is insufficient to issue the European arrest warrant, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania or the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania shall contact the institution, which has requested to issue the European arrest warrant, asking to provide the missing information within the time-limit specified by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania or the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania. If there are no grounds for issuing the European arrest warrant or the missing information is not obtained during the time-limit defined, or if the issuance of the European arrest warrant does not satisfy the principles of proportionality and procedural economy, the request to issue the European arrest warrant shall be returned to the requesting institution.
13. The European arrest warrant shall be issued not later than within 5 days after receiving all information necessary for preparing the European arrest warrant.
14. The European arrest warrant shall be prepared in accordance with the form contained in the Annex 1 of these Rules. .
16. . if the European arrest warrant is issued by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, then it shall be undersigned by the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania or his delegated persons."
The Estonian position
"Submission of European arrest warrant
(1) In pre-trial proceedings, the Prosecutor's Office and, in court proceedings, the court which conducts proceedings regarding a criminal offence which is the basis for a European arrest warrant is competent to submit the European arrest warrant.
(2) The Ministry of Justice is competent to submit a European arrest warrant for the execution of a court judgment which has entered into force.
(21) In pre-trial proceedings, a preliminary investigation judge may, at the request of the Prosecutor's Office, apply arrest for surrender before preparation of a European arrest warrant.
(22) If surrender of a person is requested in court proceedings, the arrest for surrender of the person shall be applied by the court which conducts proceedings regarding the criminal offence.
(3) A European arrest warrant shall be prepared in Estonian and it shall be translated into the language determined by the requesting state by the Ministry of Justice.
(4) A European arrest warrant shall be communicated to a requesting state through the Ministry of Justice.
(5) In cases of urgency, a request for application of arrest for surrender with regard to a person to be surrendered may be submitted to a member state of the European Union through the International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol) or the central authority responsible for the national section of the Schengen Information System with the consent of the Prosecutor's Office before a European arrest warrant is submitted."
"The court ruling declaring the person a wanted and applying arrest-on-sight towards him or her is the prerequisite for later issuance of a European arrest warrant. No European arrest warrant can be issued without a court first declaring the person a wanted and applying arrest-on-sight (domestic arrest warrant) towards him or her.
Pursuant to section 507 (21) and (22) of the Estonian Code of Criminal Procedure, applying arrest for surrender is a prerequisite for issuing an European arrest warrant. If no arrest pending surrender has been applied towards the person, then an European arrest warrant cannot be issued."
" in this current case a court requested the Ministry of Justice to issue a European arrest warrant on the basis of court decisions entered into force. The issuance of an European arrest warrant in conviction cases by the Estonian Ministry of Justice only takes place upon request by the court who made the decision in the specific case or a court that has the competence to issue the arrest warrant and to declare the person a fugitive in cases where the person was convicted by conditional sentence and the person escaped from the execution of sentence or the person was in freedom during the court procedures but has to appear to prison on a specific date and time to start the service of his/her sentence. Thus, this is the court that sends to the Ministry of Justice the judgment or ruling with request to issue the European arrest warrant. The court's decision has to be either a final and enforceable judgment satisfying the requirements of the framework decision or a domestic arrest warrant stating that the detention conditions are met.
The only restrictions that the Ministry of Justice is obliged to follow upon issuing a European arrest warrant on a court's request, are the general restrictions on issuing of European arrest warrants from [the] Framework Decision ie the requirement that the punishment of imprisonment applicable to a crime for which the person has been convicted must be longer than four months of imprisonment. If the materials sent to the Ministry of Justice for issuance of an European arrest warrant regarding a person towards whom the court has applied arrest for surrender, indicate that the actual punishment imposed on the person or actually servable part thereof is less than four months, then the Ministry of Justice may inform the court that there are no legal grounds for issuing an EAW. In other cases the court's request to issue a specific EAW is compulsory for the Ministry of Justice."
"The Judicial Co-operation Unit is one of the structural units of the Ministry of Justice, but it is independent in its decisions and bases its actions solely on the law and the international instruments. This independence is also expressed in the fact that all documents prepared by the unit, ie both European arrest warrants and MLA [mutual legal assistance] requests for judicial assistance are undersigned by the head of unit or the advisor who prepared the letter. All materials, ie requests from courts, materials of the prosecutor's office, and also judicial co-operation materials and requests for legal assistance received from abroad are forwarded from the Ministry's office directly to the Judicial Co-operation Unit without passing through the Minister, the Secretary General or the Deputy Secretary General. Therefore the executive has no information about whether, how much or which judicial co-operation materials are being preceded by the unit at any time. There has been no intervention by the executive in the unit's work and there cannot be any intervention of that kind because communication in the field of international law is very strictly regulated by domestic legislation and by various other legal acts, so it is unthinkable that the Minister or the Secretary General could order the issuance of some request for legal assistance without the initiative of a prosecutor's office or a court.
International judicial co-operation is very strictly and precisely regulated by various international conventions and treaties which prescribe also the role and competence of Ministries of Justice as central authorities. It is unthinkable that the Ministry of Justice could exceed its limits of competence by way of its executive ordering a request for legal assistance for which the Ministry of Justice has competence. It is also unthinkable that the executive of the Ministry of Justice could order that a request for legal assistance be not issued or not forwarded. As described above, in daily work the management has no information at all about the requests that are preceded [sic] by the Unit at any given time. Furthermore, the Public Service Act of the Republic of Estonia prohibits (article 62) unlawful orders from the executive and gives the ways how to react in such situations."
"3.1. THE DECISION TO ISSUE
The Estonian authorities do not have a formal practice guide concerning the instigation of European arrest warrant proceedings or the subsequent steps to be taken. Standardised European arrest warrant practices have been outlined to all European arrest warrant stakeholders during training provision supplied by the CA together with professional trainers from the Estonian Law Centre."
It states that, in the case of accusation warrants, the following factors will be taken into consideration by a review made before any decision to issue a European arrest warrant: severity of the offence, degree of participation, extent of the injury/damage. It continues:
"In cases concerning the enforcement of a sentence, officials within the CA will apply similar merit tests to assess the appropriateness of the application. They will then obtain, directly from the criminal court concerned, a copy of the order to be enforced and proceed to draft an European arrest warrant.
In real terms therefore a pragmatic de minimis test is brought to bear, balancing the seriousness of the criminality against the merits (costs or otherwise) of issuing an European arrest warrant. Estonia reported that their outgoing European arrest warrants were all of a benchmarked standard. "
For the purposes of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003:
i) A European arrest warrant issued by a Ministry in respect of a convicted person with a view to his or her arrest and extradition can be regarded as issued by a judicial authority for the purposes of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 if the Ministry only issues the warrant at the request of, and by way of endorsement of a decision that the issue of such a warrant is appropriate made by:
a) the court responsible for the sentence; or
b) some other person or body properly regarded as a judicial authority responsible for its execution (see para 57 above).
ii) If this condition is satisfied, the existence of a discretion on the part of the Ministry not to issue a European arrest warrant which the responsible court (or other judicial authority) has decided appropriate and requested it to issue does not affect this.
iii) Subject only to the second point in para 47 above (so far as left open), a Ministry which has power to issue and issues a European arrest warrant of its own motion or at the request of non-judicial authority, including an executive agency such as a prison department, cannot be regarded as a judicial authority for the above purposes.
i) The European arrest warrant issued in respect of Bucnys by the Ministry of Justice of Lithuania at the request of the Vilnius City 1st District Court was a valid Part I warrant under the 2003 Act, and Bucnys's appeal should accordingly be dismissed.
ii) The European arrest warrant issued in respect of Sakalis by the same Ministry of Justice at the request of the Prison Department was not a valid Part 1 warrant, and Sakalis's appeal should accordingly be allowed.
iii) The European arrest warrant issued in respect of Lavrov by the Ministry of Justice of Estonia at the request of the Viru County Court was a valid Part I warrant, and the Ministry of Justice of Estonia's appeal in the case of Lavrov should accordingly be allowed.