AC-2023-LON-001921 - [2025] EWHC 1416 (Admin)

In both A and Doga the French authorities argued that the identification of Article 142-11 EMHA was a question for the “competence” of the French court following an extradition surrender. It was recognised that “ultimately” only the French court “would be competent to rule on the application of French law to the [requested person]’s case” (A at §32). The French authorities said that Qualifying Remand under Article 142-11 was a question of “unfettered discretion”, with which the EJA (the UK) should not become involved at all. But that argument did not prevail in those cases. Those Courts made three key points. First, it was a “primary obligation” of the EJA to decide whether extradition would be Article 8 disproportionate or an abuse of process (A §39; Doga §32). Secondly, there was convincing evidence adduced on behalf of the requested persons: from the three French lawyers (A at §§9, 20; Doga at §§9, 12-15), from the French Supreme Court decision (A at §§11, 32; Doga §§14, 16), and from references to other cases (A at §19; Doga §18). Thirdly, there was an evidential vacuum on the part of the IJA, who had not answered the requested persons’ evidence about the French provision (A at §33; Doga at §§29-33); including in relying on an 4 August 2022 letter (A at §16; Doga at §17) and the 28 March 2023 Ministry of Justice memorandum (Doga §16).