Advocate General (AG) at the Court of Justice of the EU Juliane Kokott announced on Thursday that the legal principle of double jeopardy doesn't prevent the issuing of a European arrest warrant following the decision of the Slovak parliament in 2017 to scrap the amnesties for those suspected of kidnapping of ex-president Michal Kovac's son to Austria in 1995.
Advocate General's opinion, however, isn't binding for the judges of the Court of Justice, as they can but aren't obliged to observe it.
In March 1998, then Slovak premier Vladimir Meciar, who at that time was acting president, declared amnesties for crimes concerning the kidnapping of Kovac's son and suspended all criminal proceedings in the case. According to the Slovak law, such a suspension of prosecution has acquitting effects. Parliament, however, annulled the amnesties in 2017, allowing the original criminal proceedings to be resumed.
The case landed at the Court of Justice of the EU after Bratislava III District Court announced that it was preparing to issue a European arrest warrant for at least one of the accused. The Luxembourg judges were asked whether double jeopardy prevents the issuing of a European arrest warrant for an accused person who has already been acquitted of criminal charges based on EU law.
The Slovak court also asked whether - regardless of the European arrest warrant mechanism - the Slovak parliament's resolution on scrapping the amnesties is in line with the double jeopardy principle and the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Advocate General dealt with the issue as to whether, despite the fact that the amnesties were annulled, acquittal from charges that stemmed from the amnesty-suspended criminal proceedings should be considered final and valid, thus triggering the double jeopardy principle.
According to her, such an acquittal must meet two requirements. First, such a ruling must definitively suspend criminal proceedings in a case, and the decision must be taken on the basis of an examination of the merits of the case.
In her view, the first requirement has been met, but when it comes to the second one, the information involved in the motion for launching preliminary proceedings doesn't allow for a definitive conclusion to be reached.
Source: TASR
