High Court dismisses surrender objection for mother of three children, ruling family ties insufficient to block EAW execution.

THE HIGH COURT

[2025] IEHC 560

BETWEEN Record No 2024 194 EXT

2024 207 EXT

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

APPLICANT

v.

LUCIE BALGOVA

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Patrick McGrath delivered on the 21 October 2025

1. The Czech authorities seek the surrender of the Respondent on two European Arrest Warrants [‘EAWs’] in order that she might serve sentences of imprisonment imposed in that jurisdiction.

2. In the first EAW (Case No 194/2024), her surrender is sought to serve a sentence of imprisonment of twelve months imposed by the District Court in Decin on the 24 October 2023.

3. In the second EAW (Case No 207/2024) surrender is sought for the purposes of her prosecution for one offence of Theft contrary to Section 205(2) of the Czech Criminal Code.

4. The Respondent was arrested pursuant to an SIS alert on the 22 September 2024 and produced before the High Court on the following day. She was admitted to bail on the

25 September 2024 and the EAWs were produced to the Court on the 4 October 2025.

First EAW – 2024 EXT 194

5. In section B of this EAW the decision on which this warrant is based is described as ‘a warrant to deliver the defendant to prison to execute the sentence of imprisonment issued by the District Court in Decin on 24/10/2023, Reference 24T 104/22….a warrant to bring the person to prison so serve the sentence in imprisonment’

6. It is confirmed at Section D of this EAW that the Respondent attended in person at ‘the trial resulting in the decision’ and therefore no issue arises pursuant to s. 45 of the 2003 Act.

7. No issue arises as to identity, and I am in any event satisfied that the Respondent is the person sought on this EAW.

8. The EAW was issued by Milos Rizek, Judge of the District Court in Decin, an Issuing Judicial authority [‘IJA’] within the meaning of the 2003 Act and the Framework

Decision.

9. I am satisfied that there are sufficient particulars set out in the Warrant such that it complies with s. 11 of the 2003 Act and the requirements of the Framework Decision.

10. I am satisfied that none of the matters referred to in sections 22, 23 and 24 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended (“the 2003 Act”), arise for consideration in this application and surrender of the respondent is not precluded for any of the reasons set forth in any of those sections.

11. Following the receipt of further information in response to a request issued under s.

20 of the 2003 Act, it is now clear that the Respondent is sought in order to serve an aggregate punishment imposed in respect of two offences. The first of these offences concerned two acts of theft which constituted a single offence of Theft contrary to s.

205 of the Czech Criminal Code. The second offence concerns a third act of theft which again constitutes an offence of Theft contrary to the said s. 205.

12. These offences are described as coming within Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision and the box ticked for that purpose is described in the Warrant as ‘scams / swindling’.

In the form annexed to the Framework Decision, however, the word ‘scams’ does not appear.

13. I therefore propose to consider whether the criminal conduct which constitutes the said offences of Theft contrary to s. 205 of the Czech Criminal Code corresponds with an offence contrary to Irish Law. The relevant principles for showing correspondence are now well established. In assessing correspondence, the question is whether the acts or omissions that constitute the offence in the requesting state would, if carried out in this jurisdiction, amount to a criminal offence – Minister for Justice v Dolny [2009] IESC 48.

14. Having considered the narrative account in the Warrant, which indicates that the Respondent was involved in what is colloquially described as ‘shoplifting’, I am satisfied that the corresponding offences under Irish Law would be ones of Theft contrary to s. 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.

15. The minimum gravity requirement under the 2003 Act is clearly met as the Respondent is sought to serve a sentence of one year’s imprisonment.

Second EAW – 2024 EXT 207

16. This EAW is based upon an arrest warrant issued by the District Court in Frydek – Mistek in the Czech Republic on the 18 March 2024.

17. Again, no issue arises as to identity and I am in any event satisfied that the Respondent is the person sought on this EAW.

18. The EAW was issued by Jarmila Bazdova, Judge of the District Court in Frydek - Mistek, an Issuing Judicial authority [‘IJA’] within the meaning of the 2003 Act and the Framework Decision.

19. I am satisfied that there are sufficient particulars set out in the Warrant such that it complies with s. 11 of the 2003 Act and the requirements of the Framework Decision.

20. I am satisfied that none of the matters referred to in sections 22, 23 and 24 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended (“the 2003 Act”), arise for consideration in this application and surrender of the respondent is not precluded for any of the reasons set forth in any of those sections.

21. The Respondent is sought for prosecution in respect of offences of Theft contrary to s.

205 of the Czech Criminal Code. The offences are not certified as coming within Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision. The narrative account set out in the warrant clearly indicates acts of shoplifting and would therefore correspond with offences in this jurisdiction of Theft contrary to s.4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.

22. The minimum gravity requirement under the 2003 Act is clearly met as the Respondent faces a sentence of up to 3 years imprisonment upon conviction.

Grounds of Objection

23. The Respondent objects to her surrender to the issuing State on foot of these two EAWs pursuant to s. 37 of the 2003 Act on the grounds that her surrender would amount to a breach of her and her family’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights [‘the Convention’ ]

24. In her affidavit evidence filed in these two cases, the Respondent firstly says that she is of Roma ethnicity and, as such, has suffered from extreme prejudice in all aspects of her life in Czechia. She has three children – Michal Balog (15 years old), Hermina Demeteroba (12 years old) and Viviene Balgova (2 years old). The Respondent says that her two older children were bullied at school in Czechia by reason of their ethnicity but have now flourished in school here in Portlaoise.

25. Their father is serving a custodial sentence in the Czech Republic, and she is therefore the sole carer for her children. There is no relative or friend who would be in a position to care for her children were she to be surrendered on these Warrants.

26. The Respondent further refers to the minor nature of these offences and submits this is a factor this court ought to take into account in carrying out any balancing exercise pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention. In this regard:-

(i) The First Warrant arises from the Respondents conviction for minor shoplifting offences in late 2022 and early 2023; and

(ii) The Second Warrant arises from a prosecution alleging that the Respondent in July 2023 stole two pieces of chicken strips wrap from a Tesco Local store

27. Given the relatively minor nature of this offending and alleged offending this Court, at the instance of the Respondents lawyers, wrote to the issuing judicial authority in both these cases asking whether, bearing in mind also the family circumstances of Ms Balgova as set out in her affidavits and taking into account the various observations in the Commission Notice – Handbook on how to issue and execute a European arrest warrant (2017/C 335/01), her surrender was still sought.

28. Both IJAs indicated that they wished to proceed with these applications and referred inter alia the previous criminal record of Ms Balgova.

29. The Judge who issued Second EAW, having considered the request replied as follows:-

‘In response to your inquiry as to whether we continue to seek the extradition of the defendant Lucie Balgovoa, I would like to inform you that we do. Given the defendant’s personality, her criminal history and the number of unconditional prison sentences she has not served, it is obvious that she fled to Ireland to avoid the sentences already imposed and the prosecution in the present case. The legal system of the Czech Republic does not allow for any other course of action than to insist on her extradition’

30. An answer was received in similar terms in relation to the First EAW.

Submissions of Respondent

31. The respondent points to the minor nature of the offences for which her surrender is sought:

(a) On the First EAW (EXT 2024/194) her surrender is sought to serve a sentence imposed for minor offences of shoplifting; and

(b) On the Second EAW (EXT 2024/207) her surrender is sought to face prosecution for the alleged theft of some chicken strips to the value of about €3;

32. It is accepted by the Respondent that, provided minimum gravity is met, the proportionality of a decision to issue a EAW is a matter exclusively within the remit of the issuing state. In this regard she refers to the following comments of Mac Menamin J in Minister for Justice v Ostrowski [2013] IESC 24, at paragraph 30 of his judgment:

‘Once an EAW meets the minimum gravity test for an offence set out in the Framework Decision and the Act of 2003, it is not for the High Court to create and apply a proportionality test to a potential sentence’.

33. The Respondent recognises that the threshold for this court to intervene on Article 8 grounds is necessarily high, as made clear in decisions such Minister for Justice v D.E. [2020] IEHC 756 and the Supreme Court in Minister for Justice v Vestartas [2020] IESC 12.

34. The Respondent submits that, given the relatively minor nature of the offences and the position of the Respondent as the primary carer for three children – one of whom is very young, her surrender on these matters would constitute a disproportionate interference with her and her family’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention such that the Court ought to refuse surrender under s. 37 of the 2003 Act.

35. Alternatively, it is submitted that were the Court to make an order in this case for surrender this is a case where postponement might be ordered on humanitarian grounds pursuant to Section 18(a) of the 2003 Act. Submissions of Applicant

36. The Applicant relies on substantially the same decisions of the Superior Courts in this jurisdiction and of the CJEU.

37. The Minister submits that the observations as to proportionality in various cases cited by the Respondent ( such as Case C566/19 PPU and C626//PPU) relate to cases where decisions to prosecute are far removed in time from the decision to issue an EAW and in circumstances where a person may, as it were, have changed their life course significantly in the intervening period.

38. No such issue arises here. The Respondent has been in Ireland for a relatively short period and indeed came here with knowledge that a 12-month sentence had been imposed upon her in the issuing state. Furthermore, she has allegedly committed another offence of a similar kind in the Czech Republic giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of recidivism. The Minister submits that on the facts of this case, the suggestion that the issuing of an EAW (close in time following the issue of the domestic warrant) was ‘blindingly disproportionate’ does not withstand scrutiny.

39. The Applicant finally submits that the circumstances of Ms Balgova display few, if any, of the exceptional features that might persuade this court to refuse surrender on Article 8 grounds. Whilst the Respondent may suffer hardship from being separated from her children if surrendered, this is an inevitable consequence of all surrenders where a Respondent is the mother of young children.

Decision

40. There is a strong public interest in the surrender of persons accused or convicted of criminal offences to countries with which this State has extradition or surrender agreements. Delay in itself cannot ever operate as a bar to surrender. Disruption, indeed, significant disruption, of family and private life is the norm where surrender is ordered and this cannot ordinarily justify a refusal to surrender on foot of an otherwise lawful request.

41. This is a case where, at the request of the Respondent, letters were sent to both IJAs in who issued the two EAWs querying whether or not they wanted to pursue surrender given the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the alleged offender. The Czech authorities confirmed they are seeking her return and inter alia pointed to her alleged recidivism and their opinion that she fled to this jurisdiction to avoid prosecution and punishment.

42. The ultimate question in a case such as this is whether this is one of those truly exceptional cases (though of course exceptionality is not the test) where, due to the emergence of particular family or personal circumstances in the time since the alleged offences, Article 8 of the Convention is engaged and it would be disproportionate to order surrender in the particular circumstances of this case.

43. There has been no delay in this case in either the issue of the domestic warrants underlying these two EAWs or indeed in the issuing of the EAWs themselves.

44. This is not one of those rare cases where there are exceptional features such as might persuade this court to refuse surrender on the grounds that her extradition would amount to a disproportionate interference with her family and personal rights under Article 8 of the Convention and / or Article 41 of the Constitution. She is the mother and carer of three children, but this could not of itself amount to an exceptional feature such as to justify this Court in refusing surrender. It could not be the position that, just as a person in similar circumstances in Ireland would not in effect become immune from prosecution and punishment because he or she is the primary carer of young children, the Respondent can in these circumstances avoid prosecution and punishment for the offences for which her surrender is sought in Czechia.

45. Nor, as submitted by the Minister, is this one of those cases where the decision to issue an EAW is so far removed in time from a decision to prosecute that it could possibly be said that the issuing of such warrant is ‘blindly disproportionate’.

46. Although this is a case where surrender may result in significant interference with the family life of the Respondent and her children, it is not a case where there are grounds for this Court to refuse to order surrender.

47. In the circumstances this ground of objection is dismissed, and the Court will make an order under s.16 of the 2003 Act.