Blaj & Ors v Court of Alesd, Romania & Ors

A conviction European Arrest Warrant need not state the precise date of conviction or sentence if it contains sufficient particulars to enable the requested person to raise any relevant extradition bar. In assessing whether prison conditions create a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, the court must consider the overall conditions, including personal space, furniture, freedom of movement and time spent outside the cell. There is no requirement for three square metres of space net of beds and furniture. A suitably framed, good-faith assurance from an EU member state may dispel the risk, provided it is capable of fulfilment and monitoring. On an Article 8 appeal, the question is whether the district judge’s structured balancing decision was wrong.

Three appeals concerned the surrender of convicted persons to Romania under conviction European Arrest Warrants. The appellants challenged extradition on grounds including the validity of the warrants, the alleged risk of inhuman or degrading treatment because of Romanian prison conditions, and disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

The appeals were heard together because the Article 3 prison-conditions issue was common to all three cases. The Romanian judicial authorities accepted that, absent an adequate assurance, the Article 3 threshold was crossed for Blaj and Roman. The central issues were whether the Romanian assurance dated 26 February 2015 was sufficient, whether personal-space requirements excluded beds and furniture, and whether the Article 8 decisions below were wrong.

1. Validity of the first warrant. A conviction warrant under Extradition Act 2003, section 2, need not necessarily specify the date of conviction or sentence. The question is whether the warrant contains sufficient particulars of conviction and sentence to enable the requested person to raise any relevant bar. Blaj’s warrant satisfied that requirement.
2. Article 3 and prison conditions. The court applied the approach in Ananyev v Russia, considering whether the prisoner had individual sleeping space, at least three square metres of floor space and sufficient room to move freely between furniture. These elements create a strong presumption of a violation when one is absent, but they do not establish an inflexible automatic rule.
3. Three square metres need not be measured net of the bed and other furniture. The requirement concerning movement between furniture addresses the effect of furniture separately. The assessment remains overall and fact-sensitive.
4. For semi-open Romanian prison conditions, approximately two square metres of floor space was not automatically incompatible with Article 3. Relevant considerations included the absence of an ECtHR finding that the Romanian national standard was automatically unlawful and the fact that prisoners could spend up to 12 hours outside their cells.
5. The Romanian assurance that surrendered persons would receive personal space exceeding two square metres in semi-open or open conditions and three square metres in closed conditions was given in good faith, was capable of fulfilment, and could be monitored. The Romanian authorities could rely on it in the cases of Blaj and Roman. Trebuian had not shown that he would be sent to a particular prison failing the applicable standards.
6. The Article 8 decisions concerning Blaj and Trebuian were not wrong. The district judges had conducted the required structured balancing exercise. The public interest in extradition and compliance with the Framework Decision was substantial, and bail restrictions did not alter the result.
7. All three appeals were dismissed.

The judgment records that extradition had been ordered at first instance by District Judge Coleman in Blaj’s case, District Judge Zani in Roman’s case, and the Deputy Senior District Judge in Trebuian’s case. The High Court heard the three appeals together and dismissed them.