Charter of the European Union on Fundamental Rights, Articles 4, 19, 51.

Petruhhin, C-182/15, 6. September 2016
Aranyosi in Căldăraru, C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, 5. April 2016
C-220/18 PPU, 25. July 2018
Dorobantu, C-128/18, 15. Oktober 2019

Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 3.

Muršić v. Croatia, 20. Oktober 2016.
Torreggianni and Others v. Italy, 8. January 2013

The legal reasoning behind the decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana revolves around the question of whether to grant the extradition request of the individual to the Republic of North Macedonia. There was potential for human rights violations in North Macedonian prisons. The decision is based on different legal sources, including the EU Charter, EU legal sources, and the ECHR, which are critical in determining the compatibility of the extradition with fundamental rights protection. The decision also considers other Council of Europe sources to assess North Macedonia's prison conditions.

The Higher court relied on the EU Charter, invoking the CJEU case Petruhhin (C-182/15, 6. 9. 2016), where the CJEU ruled that in such cases where a citizen of one EU member state faces potential extradition to a third country and claims a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment there, the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) must be considered, particularly Article 4, which prohibits torture or inhuman and degrading treatment.

Firstly, the Higher court found the Slovenian authorities were obliged to assess whether there was a genuine risk of violating Article 3 of the ECHR or Article 4 and 19 of the EU Charter, in case the individual were to be returned to Macedonia. This involved a close scrutiny into the possibility of human rights abuses and the risk of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment, which were crucial factors in deciding whether the extradition request could be accepted.

Secondly, according to the Higher court, the Slovenian authorities must carefully assess the risk to the individual in the case of returning to the requesting country, especially when it involves a potential violation of human rights or the risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. In this regard, the CJEU applies a two-tiered test established in the Aranyosi and Caldararu case (C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, 5. 4. 2016):
1.    Examine systemic deficiencies: First, national courts must assess whether there are systemic deficiencies in the legal system or conditions in the requesting country that could, by themselves, pose a risk to the individual. However, the systemic deficiencies alone do not necessarily imply that a specific individual will be subjected to torture.
2.    Individual risk: National courts must further examine whether there is an individual risk to the person being exposed to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in their specific case. It is crucial to examine where the individual will be placed and what the conditions are like there. For this purpose, the state must request information from the requesting state.

In this case, the 1st instance court did so. However, Macedonian authorities provided only a very general response, explaining the technical characteristics of prison facilities (KPU Skopje) and giving an assurance that the individual at hand would not be subjected to inhumane or degrading prison conditions. The Higher court found that the 1st instance court considered several reports and findings from different independent experts and organizations, including reports from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). It found that conditions in North Macedonia’s prisons are often inadequate and that there is a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. After the initial unsatisfactory reply, the 1st instance court requested the Macedonian authorities to provide more specific information about the size of the prison cells and the current occupancy rate, but no answer was given. The Higher court rejected the claim of the state prosecutor that the 1st instance court found that the conditions in the KPU Skopje prison were getting better recently. It relied on the most recent reports from the European Commission and of the Helsinki committee for human rights that both found no meaningful change has occurred in the prison conditions from the latest CPT reports of May and July 2021. The Higher court therefore ruled that the Macedonian explanations (assurances) did not dispel doubts and concluded that the individual risk persisted. As a result, the extradition was denied.