THREE MEN have lost their Supreme Court challenge to the constitutionality of legislation under which their extraditions to the Czech and Slovak republics and Britain have been ordered.
Tomas Puta, a citizen of the Czech Republic whose extradition was ordered by the High Court in August 2006 on seven charges of robbery and theft, had also claimed his fundamental rights would be infringed if he was returned, as the Czech Republic was “unfit” to be a member of the EU and was “more like the Wild West”.
Another of the men, Mohammed Iqbal, whose extradition to Britain has been ordered in connection with charges of indecent assault and rape, was on bail pending the outcome of the challenge.
He was not in court for the decision yesterday and the five-judge Supreme Court issued a warrant for his arrest.
The court was told Mr Iqbal may have been unaware of the fact that judgment was to be given in the case.
All three men – Mr Puta, Mr Iqbal and Maros Sulej, a citizen of the Slovak Republic, who is wanted in connection with four charges of robbery and theft – had challenged the constitutionality of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 on grounds that it was enacted without the prior approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Yesterday, the five-judge Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument as not well founded.
The court also dismissed other claims by Mr Puta and Mr Sulej that they should not be extradited on grounds that their fundamental rights, including their rights to a fair trial, would be infringed if returned.
Mr Justice Nial Fennelly said the wide-ranging charges by both men against the Czech Republic amounted in effect to a claim that the Czech Republic was not really fit to be a member of the EU.
Both men had mounted an attack on the root and branch of the police, legal and governmental system of the Czech Republic.
However, neither man had produced any independent evidence to support their invitation to the Irish court to condemn the Czech system of justice as unjust, corrupt and incapable of providing a fair trial, he said.
Mr Puta had sworn an affidavit full of “unsubstantiated allegations” of mistreatment of members of his family and others but the court could not act on affidavits which had “all the appearance of wild and irresponsible allegations”.
Each EU member state owed it to each other to presume, unless the contrary was clearly shown, that it would respect fundamental human rights, the judge added.
Mr Justice Fennelly also described as “entirely unsustainable” the men’s claim that the provisions of Czech law which implement the European arrest warrant were contrary to Czech constitutional principles.