Carpac v Romania [2018] NIQB 105 (18 June 2018)

Carpac v Romania [2018] NIQB 105 (18 June 2018)

The court determined that the assurances provided by Romanian authorities were insufficiently specific and did not guarantee that the requested person would be protected from inhuman or degrading treatment throughout his detention, given systemic failures in Romanian prisons and lack of clarity regarding the facility and regime in which he would serve his sentence. Therefore, the risk of degrading or inhuman treatment could not be discounted, and extradition must be refused.

Citation
[2018] NIQB 105
Parties
Respondent/appellant: Vasile-Florin Carpaci; Applicant/respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
18 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal Against Extradition Order
Outcome
appeal granted; extradition refused
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Article 3 ECHR, Prison Conditions, Assurances in Extradition, Risk of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
Extradition Human Rights European Arrest Warrant Article 3 ECHR Prison Conditions Assurances in Extradition Risk of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vasile-Florin Carpaci

Respondent/appellant

Romania

Applicant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Appeal Against Extradition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition to Romania would expose the requested person to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether assurances provided by Romanian authorities are sufficient to discount such risk

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the assurances provided by Romanian authorities were insufficiently specific and did not guarantee that the requested person would be protected from inhuman or degrading treatment throughout his detention, given systemic failures in Romanian prisons and lack of clarity regarding the facility and regime in which he would serve his sentence. Therefore, the risk of degrading or inhuman treatment could not be discounted, and extradition must be refused.

Court Disposition

appeal granted; extradition refused

Orders

  • Requested person not to be extradited to Romania