The European Union Court of Justice (EUCJ) – which is based in Luxembourg and is either the highest or one of the two highest (depending upon one’s point of view) legal authorities – made its ruling yesterday morning and evidently decided that French prosecutors can, after all, issue European Arrest Warrants (EAWs). Why was this important to us?
Because this was an issue in the Lynda Thyer and David Noakes cases where their so-called EAWs had been issued and signed not by an independent judge but by a prosecutorial judge. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) based in Strasbourg, France has repeatedly ruled that such arrest warrants are illegal and invalid. Yet, tone deaf to the ECHR, the EU Court of Justice has ignored such precedent and all obvious legal morality in deciding that such warrants were indeed valid.
This means that now both David and Lyn will have to defend on the facts — which are still hugely in their favor — instead of being able to get the case thrown out on a legal technicality, which would have been quicker and easier, and less expensive to our NHF Legal Team, lead in court by the formidable lawyer Chloé Arnoux.
Current Case Events
Maître Arnoux has made a motion before the court today to keep Lyn Thyer out of prison. At the same time, Lyn appeared this morning before Judge Jean-Luc Gedaud for further interrogation. Doubtless, he was heartened by this new ruling; but he had to cancel today’s interrogation because the Parisian translator could not make it through the city-wide strikes even though Lyn, a stranger to Paris, was able to do so and even arrived early.
Lyn Thyer appears today for interrogation
On Monday, December 16th in Paris, the French Court of Appeals will hear and decide the continued appeal from the government in the Lyn Thyer case. Given the EUCJ decision yesterday, it is highly likely that this Court of Appeals will also disregard the European Court of Human Rights and follow instead the EUCJ decision upholding French prosecutorial arrest warrants. However, with our Motion to keep Lyn at liberty in play, and hopefully already heard by Monday morning, an honorable Court of Appeals would be loath to send Lyn Thyer back to prison.
Meanwhile, back in England, David Noakes had a near miss on Wednesday when the Border Force Police tried to corner him and enforce a blatantly illegal extradition order that would have put David on a boat, train, or plane to France this week. In an unintended humorous reenactment of the Sandford police in the 2007 film Hot Fuzz, the police officers missed David, clutching thin air instead. Sadly, the authorities are still refusing to await a decision of the Supreme Court on his illegal extradition order, which disregards the longstanding principle of no double jeopardy.
Lyn Thyer, Ian Crane, and David Noakes in England
When asked about his case, David Noakes said, “The High Court unilaterally refused to allow me to appeal against Westminster Magistrates Court extradition on Monday. There are at least seven reasons why I cannot possibly be extradited, but the senior freemason in the building illegally wrote the verdict, breaking the law with impunity, and handed it down to the Judge to read out. Wednesday, the police were bashing on my front door saying ‘Police, Extradition.’ As the High Court has refused to allow my appeal, I have to be given 28 days to appeal to the Supreme Court. But clearly the court told the police to disobey the law. All 27 of the staff of Immune Biotech Ltd fear the knock at the door, after 14 police raids, 33 persecutions, 20 court cases, four prison sentences, and multiple cases of police putting us into prison vans with tiny cells inside. Barrister John Smith submitted my appeal to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, 28 days early, and we will be asking the court to call off their police dogs.”
More on the EU-Court-of-Justice Decision
In the opinion of several knowledgeable legal commentators, the December 12th ruling by the EU Court of Justice really has no effect on the 2008 and 2010 rulings (Affaire Medvedyev Et Autres vs. France, Requête No. 3394/03) made by the European Court of Human Rights, as both the EUCJ and the EU must abide by the Lisbon and Nice Treaties that hold at their constitutional core the European Convention of Human Rights” to which all EU member states must abide. The legal precedent, which clearly stated that the French public prosecutor was not a judicial authority and therefore not entitled to issue any such arrest warrants, was lawfully decided by the European Court of Human Rights and is a mandatory ruling for the EUCJ. Therefore, yesterday’s EUCJ decision is not only illegal and unconstitutional but violates the very treaties upon which the EU has been constructed. To these commentators, the first French judge’s ruling in the Thyer case absolutely still stands.
It appears now to be a battle between the universal human rights espoused by the European Court of Human Rights, on the one hand, and the unbridled corporatism espoused through the European Court of Justice. Put another more legalistic way, it is now a battle to see which legal precedents rule over which and which of the two courts will have the final say. The fight over the legal validity of the undemocratic prosecutorial arrest warrants is by no means over. And it will be interesting to see how the French Court of Appeals in Paris rules on this matter on Monday afternoon, December 16th.
Our fight for justice and health continues. And NHF thanks ALL OF YOU for your continued financial and moral support! Believe me, we still need it. Please help Lyn and David.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.