Marian Dorin Pojega v Bihor Court (Romania)
[2023] EWHC 997 (Admin)
Marian Gurau v Suceava District Court, Romania
25 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1924 (Admin)
High Court
A Romanian court wanted to extradite a man. A UK judge initially stopped the extradition due to concerns about prison conditions in Romania. After a series of appeals and further evidence, a higher UK court decided the concerns about Romania's prisons were addressed, and allowed the extradition to proceed. The case involved detailed analysis of reports about Romanian prisons and the meaning of assurances made by the Romanian authorities
Key Facts
- •Marian Gurău's extradition to Romania was initially barred by a District Judge due to specialty and Article 8 concerns.
- •The Romanian court successfully appealed, and the case was remitted to the District Judge to reconsider specialty and whether Article 3 rights (regarding prison conditions) were violated.
- •The District Judge found against Gurău on specialty and Article 8, declined jurisdiction on the Article 3 claim, and ordered extradition.
- •Gurău appealed again, arguing the District Judge wrongly declined jurisdiction on the Article 3 claim.
- •The High Court considered whether the Article 3 issue was raised at the initial hearing, the consequences of the District Judge's error, and whether extradition would violate Gurău's Article 3 rights.
Legal Principles
Whether a potential bar to extradition was meaningfully raised at the initial hearing, even if not fully developed.
First Gurau decision and this judgment
Article 3 ECHR: Substantial grounds for believing a real risk of conditions violating Article 3 exist.
Muršić v Croatia
Burden on the requesting state to dispel doubts about a real risk of Article 3 violation.
Saadi v Italy
Assurances from requesting state must be sufficient and reliable to rebut the presumption of Article 3 violation.
Adamescu v Bucharest Appeal Court
Evaluation of assurances considers their practical application in protecting against ill-treatment.
Othman v UK
High Court's powers on appeal under Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003.
Section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003
In cases of systemic failures within a state's prison system, a simple assurance rarely suffices to avoid Article 3 violations.
Badre v Court of Florence
Assurances given by responsible officials of Council of Europe or EU states are presumed honored unless cogent evidence shows otherwise.
Ilia v Appeal Court in Athens
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The High Court found the Article 3 issue was raised at the initial hearing. Despite concerns regarding Romanian prison conditions, the Court found Romania's assurances, coupled with improvements demonstrated since the CPT report, sufficient to dispel doubts about a real risk of Article 3 violation. The personal space issue, while a weighty factor, was considered alongside other material conditions.