High court rules on extradition appeal of Croatian national

4 Feb 2025Court Report

High Court dismisses appeal against extradition of Croatian national convicted of tax fraud

Background

The High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, presided over by Mr Justice Dove, recently delivered a judgment concerning the extradition of Croatian national Andelko Mikelic. The case, heard on 21 November 2024, revolved around the appellant's challenge to an arrest warrant issued by the County Court in Zagreb, Croatia, related to a tax fraud conviction.

Case Details

Andelko Mikelic was convicted of tax fraud involving approximately €250,000 by the Municipal Court of Novi Zagreb in 2018, a decision upheld by the County Court of Rijeka in 2020. The appellant, who had relocated to the UK in 2009, was initially extradited to Croatia in 2017 after being deemed a fugitive by DJ(MC) Coleman. Following his conviction, Mikelic was released on bail but failed to report to serve his sentence, leading to the issuance of a new arrest warrant.

Legal Arguments

The appellant's primary argument against extradition was based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), claiming that his extradition would disproportionately interfere with his right to private and family life. Mikelic contended that his life in the UK, including his employment and medical conditions, should weigh against extradition.

Court's Analysis

Mr Justice Dove concluded that Mikelic was indeed a fugitive, noting that he left Croatia knowing he faced criminal proceedings and a likely custodial sentence. The judge cited Ristin v Romania, emphasising that Mikelic's departure was a deliberate attempt to evade the Croatian authorities.

Article 8 Considerations

In assessing the Article 8 claim, the court found that the interference with Mikelic’s rights was minimal compared to the public interest in extraditing him. The court highlighted the seriousness of the fraud conviction and the importance of not allowing the UK to become a safe haven for individuals avoiding justice in other jurisdictions.

Article 3 and Fresh Evidence

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence under Article 3 of the ECHR, arguing that prison conditions in Croatia would pose a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. This included a report from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and a recent ECtHR judgment concerning Croatian prison conditions.

Court's Decision on Article 3

While acknowledging the new evidence, the court held that the presumption of compliance with international obligations by Croatia was not sufficiently rebutted. The court found no substantial grounds to believe that Mikelic would face a real risk of inhuman treatment upon extradition.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the extradition order. The judgment underscored the balance between individual rights and the public interest in maintaining international legal obligations.