Popoviciu v Curtea De Apel Bucharest (Romania)
[2023] UKSC 39
Suceava District Court, Romania v Marian Gurau
2 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 439 (Admin)
High Court
A Romanian man avoided extradition to Romania because a UK judge thought Romania might try to prosecute him for crimes not listed in the extradition request. A higher court disagreed, saying there wasn't enough evidence to show Romania would break the rules, so sent the case back to the original judge for a better decision. The higher court also said it couldn't consider the man's other complaints about his case.
Key Facts
- •Marian Gurau, a 46-year-old Romanian national, was convicted in Romania for five offences (tax evasion and migrant trafficking) resulting in a 3-year 5-month sentence.
- •Gurau fled to the UK in 2015. A European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued for his return.
- •A District Judge (DJ) in the UK discharged Gurau, citing a likely breach of speciality due to an ongoing prosecution in Romania for an additional tax evasion offence (the Vaslui offence) not included in the EAW.
- •The Suceava District Court appealed the DJ's decision.
- •Before the appeal hearing, Gurau was convicted of the Vaslui offence, receiving a 2-year sentence merged with his existing sentence, resulting in a total sentence of 4 years and 1 month.
- •The appeal concerned whether the DJ was correct to find that extradition was barred by speciality and whether the court had jurisdiction to consider Gurau's cross-appeal.
Legal Principles
Strong presumption that EU Member States will respect speciality rights.
R (Mihaylov) v Bulgaria [2022] EWHC 908 (Admin)
Compelling evidence is needed to rebut the presumption of compliance with speciality.
R (Mihaylov) v Bulgaria [2022] EWHC 908 (Admin)
Practical and effective arrangements must be in place in the requesting territory to ensure speciality is not infringed.
R (Mihaylov) v Bulgaria [2022] EWHC 908 (Admin)
The burden is on the requested person to show that the presumption of compliance with speciality has been rebutted.
Brodziak v Poland [2013] EWHC 3394 (Admin)
Article 117 of the Romanian Criminal Code implements the principles of Article 27 of the Framework Decision regarding speciality.
Enasoaie v Romania [2021] EWHC 69 (Admin); Nonea v Romania [2022] EWHC 2217 (Admin)
No right of cross-appeal exists under the Extradition Act 2003 in Part 1 cases.
Government of the United States of America v Assange [2021] EWHC 2528 (Admin); Government of Turkey v Tanis [2021] EWHC 1675 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The DJ erred in finding compelling evidence of a likely breach of speciality based solely on the ongoing Vaslui proceedings and in disregarding the possibility of a request for consent under s54 of the Act. The mere existence of the Vaslui proceedings, without evidence of a deliberate intent to circumvent speciality, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of compliance.
Cross-appeal dismissed.
The court lacked jurisdiction to hear the cross-appeal as the Extradition Act 2003 doesn't provide for cross-appeals in Part 1 cases.
Case remitted to the District Judge.
The DJ is directed to reconsider the extradition request, considering the court's findings on speciality and the possibility of a s54 consent request.