Cosmin Comaneci v Romani

Cosmin Comaneci v Romani

The District Judge’s evaluation of Article 8 ECHR proportionality was correct; the fresh evidence does not materially alter the balance of factors and does not justify refusal of extradition or admission of new evidence under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.

Parties
Appellant: Cosmin Comaneci; Respondent: Romania; Interested Party: National Crime Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extradition, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Fresh Evidence
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Extradition Law Extradition Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Fresh Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cosmin Comaneci

Appellant

Romania

Respondent

National Crime Agency

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights
  2. 2 Admissibility and impact of fresh evidence on Article 8 assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge’s evaluation of Article 8 ECHR proportionality was correct; the fresh evidence does not materially alter the balance of factors and does not justify refusal of extradition or admission of new evidence under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application to admit fresh evidence refused
  • Extradition order stands