Marian Gurau v Suceava District Court, Romania
[2024] EWHC 1924 (Admin)
Marian Dorin Pojega v Bihor Court (Romania)
5 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 997 (Admin)
High Court
Someone was fighting extradition to Romania because of bad prisons. A new promise from Romania about better prison conditions was accepted by the court, so the person will be sent back.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against extradition to Romania under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003.
- •Single ground of appeal: Article 3 ECHR violation due to prison conditions.
- •Appellant convicted of bribery in Romania, with sentence remaining to be served.
- •Initial reliance on a September 2021 assurance regarding prison conditions.
- •Respondent applied to admit a December 2022 assurance, superseding the earlier one.
- •December 2022 assurance offers detailed guarantees about the Appellant's treatment in Romanian prisons, including a minimum of 3m² of personal space.
- •The December assurance is materially identical to the assurance deemed sufficient in *Marinescu and others v Udecatoria Neamt (Romania)* [2022] EWHC 2317 (Admin).
Legal Principles
Article 3 ECHR: No one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The test is whether there are strong grounds for believing a real risk exists.
R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] AC 323, [24]
Prison conditions in a requesting state can violate Article 3. A minimum of 3m² of individual sleeping space is required in prison to comply with Article 3.
Mursic v Croatia [2017] 65 EHRR 1
Adequate assurances from the requesting state can remove the risk of an Article 3 violation.
Various cases, including *Marinescu*
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to receive fresh evidence (including assurances) in extradition appeals; the key test is whether it's in the interests of justice.
FK v Stuttgart State Prosecutor's Office, Germany [2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin); *Assange*; *Sula*
Outcomes
Respondent's application to admit the December 2022 assurance was granted.
It was in the interests of justice; it avoids delay and duplication of proceedings; Romania did not act tactically; no prejudice to the Appellant; the assurance is sufficient to dispel any Article 3 risk.
Appeal dismissed.
The December 2022 assurance, mirroring the sufficient assurance in *Marinescu*, dispels any risk of Article 3 violation.