Arrest under ‘Schengen Information System’ was valid for surrender pursuant to European arrest warrant

European Arrest Warrant – European Law - prosecutorial warrant – Austrian authorities seeking the surrender of the respondent - alleged robbery and false imprisonment offences – argued that the European Arrest Warrant was not issued by a valid issuing judicial authority – affidavit – request for information - no valid Schengen Information System alert - surrender prohibited by Section 37 on the basis of Abuse of Process of the SIS II Alert system – chronology - level of independence a body must have in order to constitute a valid judicial authority for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – caselaw of the CJEU - relevant statutory and legislative provisions – applicable caselaw - stand alone instrument capable of securing the arrest and surrender of a person - there is no requirement for the Court, where an arrest based on an SIS Alert has taken place, to engage in the process of assessing the validity of the Alert or otherwise to police the SIS Alert system - criteria under section 16(2) of the 2003 Act do not include the Court in the executing State conducting a review of hearings which took place before the domestic courts - applicable statutory procedure when there is an arrest on foot of an Alert has been complied with in this instance - no evidence of abuse of process - the facts are not so extraordinary that they call for an explanation and the assertion of abuse of process is speculative – whether surrender should be refused where there is no decision to prosecute - several interactions with the Austrian authorities, without any steps having been taken to charge him with the said offences - issuing judicial authority has confirmed by way of additional information that, while a further step must be taken prior to charge, i.e. the interview of the respondent, which is a mandatory process, the indictment will be drawn up and the case referred for trial – Court satisfied that surrender of the respondent is not precluded by reason of s. 21A of the Act of 2003 – whether surrender prohibited by Article 8/Abuse of Process – personal circumstances – delay - test which must be applied where an application for surrender is opposed on the grounds of Article 8 of the ECHR - delay in this case could not be considered “egregious” - insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under s. 4A of the 2003 Act – surrender ordered