Surrender ordered to Germany as warrant is not ambiguous or lacking sufficient information

European arrest warrant – prosecutorial warrant – German authorities seeking the respondent’s surrender - offences were described in more general terms than is required – further information sought - charged with 28 offences - underlying arrest warrant provided - points of objection - an error on the face of the EAW corrected in the additional information - no doubt or ambiguity - EAW is in the form required by the Framework Decision and does identify the decision on which it is based - respondent has not produced cogent evidence or any adequate evidence to displace the statutory presumption that a decision has been made to charge and try the respondent for the offences described in the EAW - respondent is clearly entitled to apply for bail, when surrendered – alleged ambiguity in the warrant – alleged insufficiency of information - entitled to know the number and nature of the offences for which his/her surrender is sought - no lack of clarity or ambiguity about the number or nature of charges that are to be proffered against the respondent upon his surrender - fundamental change in the purpose for which the EAW was issued, or in the nature of the information set out in the EAW - Court is entitled to read all of the information provided in the EAW and the additional information as a whole in considering whether or not there has been compliance by the issuing judicial authority as regards the information required to be provided by the Framework Decision – information provided meets the requirements of both the Framework Decision and the Act of 2003 in this regard and that the additional information does not constitute a fundamental change of the EAW such as to require this Court to refuse this application - respondent must produce cogent evidence that no decision to charge and try the person whose surrender is sought has been made at the time of issue of the EAW – affidavit of laws - inconclusive as to whether or not a decision to charge and try the respondent had been taken as of the date of the issue of the EAW - fact that an investigation is on-going is not inconsistent with a decision to charge and try – evidence provided fell well short of the requirement to establish, by cogent evidence, that no decision to charge and try the respondent has been taken – whether the respondent would be entitled to bail - no doubt at all that the respondent has an entitlement to appeal the arrest warrant, and in particular the remand in custody element thereof – alleged ambiguity in relation to correspondence – correspondence established – surrender ordered