Published on 7 June 2021
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 11841/21
Tom WEICKERT
against Slovenia
lodged on 29 January 2021
communicated on 17 May 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns extradition proceedings against the applicant (German national) and his related detention. The applicant had been charged in the United States of America (the U.S.) with criminal offences relating to conspiracy and smuggling. Following an international arrest warrant, he was apprehended in Slovenia and detained pending his extradition to the U.S. According to the information provided for the purposes of the extradition proceedings by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, the applicant, if convicted as charged, could be sentenced to 385 years in prison but could also receive only a conditional prison sentence (sentence being at the discretion of the judge sitting in the case). The U.S. Attorney submitted examples where for similar criminal offences a sentence of no more than three years was imposed (often much less). However, it is not clear from the letter for how many counts these individuals were convicted (in one instance it explicitly refers to three counts, and in one instance to two counts, in other cases there is no such indication).
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he could be sentenced to de facto life imprisonment and to a disproportionate prison sentence.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Could the sentence the applicant faces, if convicted, be considered “grossly disproportionate” (see Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 24027/07 and 4 others, § 237-8, 10 April 2012, compare also to ibid. § 243) or a de facto and de iure irreducible life sentence (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 98, ECHR 2008, compare also to Babar Ahmad and Others, cited above, § 243), contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?
2. In particular, if extradited to the U.S., would the applicant, if convicted, face a real risk of being sentenced to discretionary life sentence? Could the sentences imposed for similar offences in the U.S. relied on by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois be considered indicative of a sentence that could be imposed on the applicant, if convicted, having regard, in particular, to the nature and the number of counts of offences the applicant was charged with?
3. What are the mechanisms available in the U.S. to reduce the applicant’s sentence or allow for his early release, if he is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy