Our client, a Danish citizen, was arrested on 2 January 2025 at Madrid-Barajas Airport pursuant to an International Arrest Warrant issued by the judicial authorities of Tajikistan for an alleged offence of fraud. The following day, he was brought before the court, which ordered his release on bail subject to precautionary measures that we considered disproportionate. These measures required him to remain in Spain, preventing him from exercising his profession as an airline pilot.
In response, we filed an appeal arguing that the precautionary measures imposed caused a disproportionate prejudice to our client. We requested alternative measures that would allow our client to continue exercising his profession and to reside in his country of origin. The appeal was upheld by the Criminal Chamber of the National High Court. The precautionary measures were modified, replacing the obligation of weekly appearances before the Court with monthly appearances, and limiting the prohibition on leaving the national territory to the European territory, thus allowing him to reside in his country of origin. Additionally, bail was set at €20,000.
Although this modification enabled him to continue working as a pilot and to resume his life in his home country, we still considered it disproportionate, given the economic and family burden that a monthly trip to Spain solely for the purpose of appearing before the Court entailed. This obligation forced him to alter his work schedule, disrupt his flight planning, and assume significant expenses that would not be reimbursed. We therefore requested that the monthly apud-actaappearance be carried out before the court closest to our client’s habitual residence. This request was denied by a judicial order dated 10 March 2025. Dissatisfied with this decision, we lodged a motion for reconsideration (recurso de reforma) on 13 March 2025, which was also dismissed by an order dated 18 March 2025.
In light of the repeated refusals to our requests, we lodged an appeal before the Criminal Chamber of the National High Court. In this appeal, we not only reiterated our previous requests, but also sought the lifting of the precautionary measures on the grounds that more than 80 days had passed since the arrest without the Tajik authorities having formally submitted the extradition request or the supporting documentation.
Although this appeal was dismissed by the Criminal Chamber of the National High Court, it served to remind the Central Investigating Court that the statutory deadlines set forth in Law 4/1985 and other treaties on passive extradition had already expired for the Tajik authorities to provide the documentation supporting the extradition request of our client. Finally, on 3 April, the Central Investigating Court issued an order provisionally discontinuing the proceedings and lifting the precautionary measures restricting our client’s liberty.
This case reflects our commitment to the effective and rigorous defence of our clients’ interests. Thanks to our strategic, persistent, and well-founded intervention, we succeeded not only in modifying disproportionate precautionary measures, but also in obtaining the discontinuance of the proceedings against our client, thereby safeguarding his liberty and ensuring respect for his fundamental rights.
