Georgeta Ghinea v Gaesti Law Court, Romania
[2024] EWHC 1895 (Admin)
Marian Vasile v Judecatoria Oltenita Romania
3 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 467 (Admin)
High Court
Someone was fighting extradition to Romania. The paperwork looked confusing, but the court decided it was a request for trial (not to serve a sentence), and extra information made everything clear. So, the person will be sent to Romania for trial.
Key Facts
- •Marian Vasile appealed against an extradition order to Romania for driving offences.
- •The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) contained apparent inconsistencies regarding whether it was for a conviction or accusation.
- •A significant delay occurred before the final appeal hearing.
- •Vasile was convicted in Romania for the driving offences while the extradition appeal was pending.
- •The appeal focused solely on whether the EAW was invalid due to deficient particulars under s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003.
- •The appellant argued that the EAW was inherently contradictory and could not be cured by further information.
- •The respondent argued that the EAW was an accusation warrant, and even if contradictory, the further information clarified any ambiguities.
Legal Principles
Validity of a European Arrest Warrant depends on whether the prescribed particulars are present, not on their accuracy. Further information can remedy defects at the extradition hearing stage.
Zakrzewski v Regional Court in Lodz, Poland [2013] 1 WLR 324
Missing information required by s.2(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 can be remedied by supplementary information from the issuing authority, provided there's a document in the prescribed form attempting to address the Act's requirements. The court must decide if there are lacunae or a wholesale failure.
Alexander v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Marseilles; Di Benedetto v Court of Palermo [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin)
An EAW must satisfy the terms of s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003 for extradition to be ordered; the issuing authority bears the burden of proof to the criminal standard; the court should approach the EAW with mutual trust and confidence, allowing for language difficulties.
M, B v Preliminary Investigation Tribunal of Napoli, Italy v X, Y, Z
Whether an EAW is for conviction or accusation is fundamental, impacting potential bars to extradition and the requested person's awareness of the extradition's purpose.
Extradition Act 2003, s.2
Sufficient circumstances must be provided in the EAW to allow identification of the offence, understanding of allegations, transposition for dual criminality, and determining extradition barriers.
FK v Stuttgart State Prosecutor’s Office, Germany [2017] EWHC 2160
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the EAW, considered as a whole, was clearly an accusation warrant. Any apparent inconsistencies were lacunae remedied by the supplementary information, without prejudice or abuse of process. The warrant complied with s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003.