Georgiev, R (on the application of) v Sofia Prosecutor's Office & Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office Bulgaria

In an extradition appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the court must assess the claimant’s individual circumstances rather than infer that extradition is generally unsafe because of evidence of wider deficiencies in the requesting state. Article 2 and Article 3 claims require a real risk established by sufficiently strong grounds; the court may distinguish between risks associated with police custody and conditions in prison. A risk from non-state actors engages Article 3 only where the receiving state cannot provide appropriate protection. Article 6 imposes the stringent test of a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. General concerns about policing or judicial independence, without case-specific evidence meeting that threshold, are insufficient. Mutual trust within the European extradition framework also limits the appropriateness of scrutinising the requesting state’s judicial processes.

Tihomir Georgiev appealed against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Bulgaria under two European arrest warrants. One warrant concerned convictions for murder and assault. The other concerned allegations of organised crime, drug distribution, robbery, assault and kidnapping or false imprisonment.

He relied on sections 21 and 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention. He argued that past alleged police ill-treatment, risks from non-state actors, general concerns about Bulgarian institutions and the circumstances of his convictions created a real risk of violations on return. The central issue was whether the District Judge ought to have concluded that extradition would be incompatible with a Convention right.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court could allow the appeal only if the District Judge had answered a relevant question incorrectly and the correct answer would have required discharge. Section 21 required consideration of compatibility with Convention rights.
2. For Articles 2 and 3, the threshold was high. The claimant had to establish sufficiently strong grounds for believing that extradition would expose him to a real risk of death or torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. The court noted that the distinction between the Article 2 and Article 3 thresholds remained unresolved, but it made no difference on these facts.
3. Evidence of violent past arrests was capable of engaging Article 3. Evidence of wider concerns about Bulgarian police conduct and official indifference did not establish a systemic failure making extradition unsafe for everyone. The assessment had to focus on the claimant’s particular circumstances. The evidence supported a distinction between police conduct and prison conditions. The claimant was not shown to face a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment while serving his sentence or awaiting trial in prison.
4. Where the feared harm came from non-state actors, Article 3 required a real risk and a failure by the receiving state to provide appropriate protection. The evidence did not show that Bulgarian authorities were incapable of protecting the claimant.
5. Article 6 was engaged only by a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. That stringent test required more than procedural irregularities, inadequate safeguards or the possibility of judicial error. General concerns about judicial independence and corruption, and the history of the claimant’s Bulgarian proceedings, did not meet it. The court also considered it inappropriate, absent wholly exceptional circumstances, to investigate the judicial processes of a European Union state within a system founded on mutual trust and confidence.
6. The District Judge’s conclusions under Articles 2, 3 and 6 were open to her. The usual legal-aid assessments were directed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Deputy Senior District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed. The court held that the District Judge had not erred in rejecting the Articles 2, 3 and 6 objections.