E.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Inadmissible
Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
1. The applicant, Ms E.B., is a Polish national, who was born in 1976 and lives in London. The President granted the applicant’s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). She was represented before the Court by Stephen Fidler, a solicitor advocate practising in London. The Government were represented by their agent, Ms R. Tomlinson, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Observations on the merits were received from the respondent Government and the applicant and third party observations were received from the AIRE Centre and Fair Trials International. 2. 3. The applicant entered the United Kingdom in 2007. At the time, she had two children: A., born in 1993; and B., born in 1999. She subsequently gave birth to a third child, C., born in 2008. 4. On 16 July 2009 a European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) was issued in respect of the applicant in light of a conviction in Poland for three counts of insult, one of assault and one of threatening behavior for which she had been sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment. She appealed against her proposed surrender to Poland, arguing that the surrender would lead to her separation from her children. 5. In November 2009, B. and C. were placed in foster care. The applicant enjoyed supervised access to them four times a week. 6. The applicant subsequently became pregnant. 7. On 11 June 2010 the District Judge ordered the applicant’s surrender to Poland. The judge found it “troubling” that there was no material before the court from social services as to what arrangements had been put in place for the care of any of the applicant’s children in the event of her extradition. He accepted that her extradition would engage Article 8, noting that the main issue was proportionality. He referred to the strong public interest in honouring extradition agreements and the need for exceptional Article 8 grounds in order to outweigh that interest. The applicant’s family unit was “already fragmented with two children in care” and there was a “high probability” that the unborn child would be taken into care for the same reasons as the other two, namely the applicant’s poor emotional state and inability to look after them. This was likely to occur regardless of whether or not she was extradited. Given the applicant’s already fragmented family life and the principle that she should face the consequences of her proven misconduct in Poland, the judge concluded that there was no proper basis for discharging her from the extradition proceedings. 8. The applicant appealed to the High Court. 9. In August 2010 she gave birth to her fourth child, D., and started breastfeeding him. She was subsequently placed in a residential unit with D., and B. and C. joined them in September and October respectively. At the time, A. was accommodated by the local authority in semiindependent accommodation. 10. Social services subsequently provided an update of the circumstances of the applicant and her children to the High Court. They explained that the applicant was undergoing a parenting assessment which would determine whether her children could remain with her or not. If the applicant completed the assessment successfully and remained in the United Kingdom, then an ongoing care plan and support package would be put in place for her to continue looking after her children in the community. If the applicant were extradited to Poland, her three youngest children would be taken into foster care while the local authority liaised with the Polish authorities with a view to finding a longer-term care arrangement for the children in Poland. 11. On 21 October 2010 the High Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against her surrender. The judge found that the applicant’s situation was, in itself, no bar to extradition. He concluded that the evidence before the court did not support a conclusion that irretrievable damage, either to the applicant or her baby, would result from the applicant’s extradition. The judge expressed the hope that every opportunity would be taken by those responsible to ensure that the applicant’s arrival in Poland, and that of her baby, would be as painless as possible. 12. On 28 October 2010, the applicant lodged an application before this Court and requested an interim measure to prevent her extradition. 13. On 2 November 2010, the President of the Chamber decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and indicated to the Government of the United Kingdom that the applicant should not be extradited until further notice. 14. On 22 February 2011 the application was communicated to the respondent Government for observations. 15. By letter dated 17 November 2011, the applicant’s legal representatives informed the Court that B., C. and D. had been placed in local authority care. Care proceedings were commenced in respect of all three children. 16. In November 2011 the applicant gave birth to a fifth child, E. The child was immediately placed in local authority care and care proceedings were commenced. 17. By letter dated 15 March 2012, the applicant’s legal representatives informed the Court that a final care order had been made in respect of B. 18. By letter dated 30 May 2013, the applicant’s legal representatives informed the Court that final care and placement orders had been made in respect of C., D. and E. The applicant’s consent had been dispensed with. 19. Part I of the Extradition Act 2003 deals with extradition to Category 1 territories which include all the member states of the European Union which operate the European Arrest Warrant system. Poland is therefore a Category 1 territory. 20. Section 21 of the Act requires the judge at the extradition hearing to decide whether a person’s extradition would be compatible with Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998. If the extradition would be incompatible, then the judge is required to order the person’s discharge. 21. If the judge at the extradition hearing orders the person’s extradition, Section 26 provides for a right of appeal to the High Court. Section 32 provides for a right of appeal to the House of Lords against a decision of the High Court, with the leave of either the High Court or the House of Lords.