Marian Dorin Pojega v Bihor Court (Romania)
[2023] EWHC 997 (Admin)
Alba Iulia Court of Law, Romania v Ferencz Ioan Szabo
18 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2123 (Admin)
High Court
A Romanian court wanted to bring a man back to serve his sentence, but a UK court let him go because of worries about his treatment in a Romanian prison. Romania provided better information showing the prison would be okay, and the UK court changed its mind, sending the case back to decide if the man should go back to Romania.
Key Facts
- •Appeal under section 28(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 against discharge of Mr. Ferencz Ioan Szabo under section 21(2) of the 2003 Act.
- •Mr. Szabo was discharged due to a real risk of a breach of his Article 3 ECHR rights during his initial 21-day stay in Bucharest-Rahova Prison.
- •The judicial authority appealed, seeking admission of two additional prison assurances (March 2022 and April 2022).
- •Mr. Szabo was convicted in Romania of theft and driving without a license, and faces a sentence of approximately 2 years, 2 months, and 8 days.
- •The initial prison assurance was deemed inadequate by the Magistrate's Court.
- •The appeal concerns the Magistrate's refusal to admit additional material from the Gheorghe v Romania case and the failure to make an Aranyosi request.
Legal Principles
Section 29 of the Extradition Act 2003 determines whether the judge ought to have decided differently and if the discharge would not have been required with a correct decision.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 29
Legal principles regarding Article 3 ECHR objections to extradition are summarized in Marinescu v Romania [2022] EWHC 2317 (Admin).
Marinescu v Romania [2022] EWHC 2317 (Admin)
Aranyosi procedure (Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and Article 613(2) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement) requires supplementary information if the executing judicial authority finds information insufficient to decide on surrender.
Aranyosi and Căldăraru (Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU), Mohammed v Portugal [2017] EWHC 3237 (Admin), Trade and Cooperation Agreement, Article 613(2)
Principles on admitting prison assurances on appeal are outlined in Greece v Hysa [2022] EWHC 2050 (Admin) and Pojega v Romania [2023] EWHC 997 (Admin).
Greece v Hysa [2022] EWHC 2050 (Admin), Pojega v Romania [2023] EWHC 997 (Admin)
Outcomes
Allowed the judicial authority's applications to admit the March 2022 and April 2022 assurances.
The assurances, though provided late, would have led to a different decision. No tactical delay or bad faith was shown. Admission is in the interests of justice and avoids unnecessary delays and further proceedings.
Allowed the appeal; quashed the order discharging Mr. Szabo; remitted the case.
The judge erred in not adjourning the hearing to allow the judicial authority to provide adequate assurances or in not making an Aranyosi request. The additional assurances were sufficient to address Article 3 concerns.
Similar Cases
Nicolae-Filip Uca v Arad Courthouse, Romania
[2023] EWHC 449 (Admin)
Marian Gurau v Suceava District Court, Romania
[2024] EWHC 1924 (Admin)
János Orsós v Dr Antal Gábor, Penitentiary Judge at the Pécs Regional Court, Hungary
[2023] EWHC 3089 (Admin)
Viorel Ovidiu Sandulescu v Ramnicu Valcea Court (Romania)
[2024] EWHC 1026 (Admin)