Viorel Ovidiu Sandulescu v Ramnicu Valcea Court (Romania)
[2024] EWHC 1026 (Admin)
Adrian Dragan v District Court of Baila (Romania)
14 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1785 (Admin)
High Court
A man was convicted of crimes in Romania and is fighting extradition to serve his sentence. He argues the conviction was unfair due to inconsistencies with a separate civil case and a later ruling that deemed a relevant Romanian law unconstitutional. However, a UK court found that while the Romanian legal process was long and complicated, it was not fundamentally unfair, and he must be extradited.
Key Facts
- •Adrian Dragan appeals against extradition to Romania based on two convictions: attempting to pervert the course of justice and fraud related to agricultural payments.
- •The fraud conviction is challenged based on a prior civil court decision that annulled the lease agreement used to obtain the payments.
- •The Romanian Constitutional Court subsequently declared a relevant section of the Code of Criminal Procedure unconstitutional, impacting the fraud conviction.
- •Dragan argues dual criminality is not met, double jeopardy applies, and his rights under Articles 5 and 8 ECHR were violated.
- •Numerous appeals in Romanian courts regarding the convictions were unsuccessful before the UK hearing.
Legal Principles
Dual Criminality
Extradition Act 2003, sections 10 and 65
Double Jeopardy
Extradition Act 2003, section 12; Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254; Fofana v France [2006] EWHC 744 (Admin)
Article 5 ECHR
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5; Othman v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 1
Article 6 ECHR
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6
Article 8 ECHR
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
Dishonesty (Fraud)
Fraud Act 2006, sections 2 and 3; Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) [2018] AC 391
Abuse of Process
Case law, e.g., Belbin v France [2015] EWHC 149 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that dual criminality was satisfied; double jeopardy did not apply; there was no flagrant breach of Articles 5 or 6 ECHR; and the Article 8 claim lacked merit. The Romanian legal process, while lengthy and producing rulings adverse to the appellant, was not shown to be fundamentally flawed.
Permission to bring the dual criminality ground refused.
The appellant failed to demonstrate a fundamental error, unfairness, or bad faith in the Romanian proceedings sufficient to disregard the Framework List.