No time limit for completion of extradition investigation

Case no. 95/2022
Order made on 13 April 2023

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

In the mid-2010s, T was made subject to a request for extradition for prosecution in a country outside the EU and the Nordic countries, where he is charged with violations of the country’s criminal law, among other things. The Danish police and the Prosecution Service then began an investigation into whether the conditions for extradition were met. This investigation is still ongoing.

In 2021, T requested a meeting with the Public Prosecutor in order to discuss, among other things, the length of proceedings. The Public Prosecutor rejected the request on the grounds, among other things, that the case was being dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible. T then approached the Minister for Justice and requested that the Minister instruct the Public Prosecutor to complete its investigation of the extradition request within a time limit set by the Minister. The Minister for Justice refused the request.

T then asked the courts, among other things, to fix a time limit for the conclusion of the investigation by the Public Prosecutor on his extradition. In this connection, T argued, among other things, that, pursuant to Section 718(b) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, the courts had the possibility of setting a time limit for the Prosecution Service to conclude an extradition investigation and that, under the European Convention on Human Rights, he had the right to an effective remedy in connection with the Public Prosecutor’s lengthy proceedings, which could only be fulfilled by the courts being authorised to set a time limit for the conclusion of the investigation.

The Supreme Court stated that Section 718(b) of the Administration of Justice Act does not in itself give the courts the authority to set a time limit for the Prosecution Service to conclude an extradition investigation, and that the reference in the Danish Extradition Act to the Administration of Justice Act did not allow the provision to be applied.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that, under the ECHR, T was not entitled to have the extradition investigation concluded within a certain period of time pursuant to Article 6. Subsequently, and since the other articles invoked could not be applied to the request either, the Supreme Court stated that it would not be contrary to the ECHR that there was no legal basis for the courts to set a time limit for the Public Prosecutor’s conclusion of the investigation into the extradition of T.

T’s request was thus not upheld.

The High Court had reached the same conclusion.