Pieknyi v Hunedoara County Court Romania

An appeal against removal under a European Arrest Warrant will fail where the appellant provides no material capable of establishing a real risk that return would expose him to treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellate court proceeds on the factual findings below unless the appellant challenges them on a proper basis. Issues concerning a possible reconsideration of a sentence under the law of the requesting state are matters for that state and do not ordinarily determine the extradition appeal.

The appellant, a Romanian citizen, appealed against District Judge Evans’s decision directing his removal to Romania under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned convictions arising from corruption and unlawful felling of trees. The appellant had deliberately absented himself from the latter part of his trial and had been convicted and sentenced in Romania to three years’ imprisonment.

Before the District Judge, and on appeal, he sought to raise an alleged risk of serious ill-treatment in Romania, said to engage article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issue was whether there was sufficient material to justify finding a real risk of treatment contrary to his human rights.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant’s sole ground of appeal was that return to Romania would expose him to treatment contrary to article 3. The court had no material enabling it to find a real risk of such treatment.
2. The findings of fact made by the District Judge were accepted for the purposes of the appeal. The appellant had deliberately absented himself from the latter part of his trial and was therefore to be treated as a convicted person returning to serve the sentence imposed.
3. The appellant had not produced material showing that there was merit in his allegation that he would be seriously ill-treated by State agents, or by others from whose activities State agents could not properly protect him. In the absence of such material, the human-rights ground could not succeed.
4. The possibility under Romanian law of seeking reconsideration of the sentence was not a matter properly to be considered on this appeal. The appellant could take such steps as he was advised to take in Romania.
5. The court granted the appellant’s application for a detailed assessment of his costs.

• District Judge Evans: Directed that the appellant could be removed to Romania under the European Arrest Warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal. The District Judge’s factual findings were not challenged, and the appellant had not established a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3.