The Article 26/624 Mechanism
The Article 26/624 Mechanism
An important reference point for the legal analysis is the extradition framework relating to qualifying remand in custody. That framework is what would have been applicable to the Appellant’s case if, instead of conditional bail with an EMC, he had been remanded in custody. In that situation, there is an entitlement to a deduction, in which one day of detention counts as one day of time-served from the relevant sentence. The governing provisions are Article 624 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which mirrors Article 26 of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (A at §28; Doga at §20). I will call this mechanism “Article 26/624”. It is a mechanism which has been strongly emphasised by the French authorities in the Ministry of Justice’s March 2023 further information (Doga §16) and again in the Paris Prosecutor’s Office’s April 2025 further information. Under the Article 26/624 mechanism, the IJA has a duty to deduct from the relevant custodial sentence all relevant periods of “detention” which have arisen in conjunction with extradition. The governing provision within the French Code is Article 716-4[2] (§21 below). The EJA for its part has a duty to transmit information to the IJA about periods of extradition detention. This Article 26/624 mechanism squarely places the function of deduction on the IJA.
- Heading
- FORDHAM J
- PART 2. THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT
- Qualifying Curfew in UK and French Domestic Law
- Four Components
- A and Doga
- Expert Evidence and the Chance to Respond
- Further Information and a Reply
- Background
- Evidence Ventilated in Previous Cases
- A Sole Viable Point
- The Article 26/624 Mechanism
- Deprivation of Liberty
- Article 716-4 of the French Code
- “Detention” and ‘Exclusive Competence’ of the IJA
- Responsibilities of the EJA
- These EMCs are not a Deprivation of Liberty
- Restriction of Liberty
- Article 142-11 of the French Code
- The French Appellate Courts
- The French Supreme Court’s Review Role
- Qualifying Curfew and ‘Exclusive Competence’ of the IJA
- EMHA is an Evaluative Question
- Article 142-11 is a Duty
- Very Clear Cut
- The Evidence
- This Case
- Conclusion
- PART 3. THE RESPONDENT’S REQUEST
- Andrysiewicz
- The Request
- Injustice
- Very Clear-Cut
- Conclusions
![AC-2023-LON-001921 - [2025] EWHC 1416 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)