The Court In Mures & Anor v Zagrean [2016] EWHC 2786 (Admin) (04 November 2016)

The Court In Mures & Anor v Zagrean [2016] EWHC 2786 (Admin) (04 November 2016)

The court held that the Romanian assurances regarding prison conditions, as reaffirmed and clarified in recent correspondence, are sufficient to dispel any real risk of Article 3 ECHR breach for UK extraditees, including during the quarantine period at Rahova prison. The assurances are reliable, given in good faith, objectively likely to be fulfilled, and capable of verification. There is no systemic evidence of non-compliance. On the section 20 Extradition Act 2003 issues, the court found that the requested persons were either deliberately absent from their trials or, in any event, would have a right to retrial under Romanian law, as evidenced by the information in the EAWs and...

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2786 (Admin)
Parties
1st Appellant: The Court in Mures; 1st Appellant: The Bistrita-Nasaud Tribunal, Romania; 1st Respondent: Alexandru Zagrean; 2nd Appellant: Petru Sunca; 2nd Respondent: Iasi Court of Law, Romania; 3rd Appellant: Stelian Chihaia; 3rd Respondent: Bacau Court of Law, Romania
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal and Judicial Review / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeals and Applications
Outcome
Appeals allowed; extradition ordered
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Section 20 Extradition Act 2003, Prison Conditions, Right to Retrial, Mutual Recognition, Assurances in Extradition
Extradition Human Rights Criminal Law European Law European Arrest Warrant Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Section 20 Extradition Act 2003 +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Court in Mures

1st Appellant

The Bistrita-Nasaud Tribunal, Romania

1st Appellant

Alexandru Zagrean

1st Respondent

Petru Sunca

2nd Appellant

Iasi Court of Law, Romania

2nd Respondent

Stelian Chihaia

3rd Appellant

Bacau Court of Law, Romania

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal and Judicial Review / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeals and Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition to Romania would breach Article 3 ECHR due to prison conditions
  2. 2 Whether the Romanian assurances regarding prison conditions are reliable and verifiable
  3. 3 Whether the requested persons were deliberately absent from their trials under section 20 Extradition Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Romanian assurances regarding prison conditions, as reaffirmed and clarified in recent correspondence, are sufficient to dispel any real risk of Article 3 ECHR breach for UK extraditees, including during the quarantine period at Rahova prison. The assurances are reliable, given in good faith, objectively likely to be fulfilled, and capable of verification. There is no systemic evidence of non-compliance. On the section 20 Extradition Act 2003 issues, the court found that the requested persons were either deliberately absent from their trials or, in any event, would have a right to retrial under Romanian law, as evidenced by the information in the EAWs and...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; extradition ordered

Orders

  • The appeal by the Judicial Authority against the discharge of Alexandru Zagrean is allowed; extradition to Romania is ordered.
  • The appeals by Petru Sunca and Stelian Chihaia against their extradition orders are dismissed; extradition to Romania is confirmed.