Ilia v Appeal Court in Athens (Greece)

When extradition to an EU state raises a real issue concerning prison conditions, a sufficiently reliable and specific assurance may dispel doubts about a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3. An assurance from a responsible minister or senior official of an EU state is presumed to be honoured unless cogent evidence shows otherwise.

Article 8 requires a proportionality assessment, not an exceptionality test. The constant and weighty public interest in extradition must be balanced against the requested person’s private and family life. A short outstanding sentence or time spent under an extradition curfew will not necessarily outweigh that public interest.

A former Greek judge appealed against an order for her extradition under a European arrest warrant. Earlier hearings had disposed of numerous challenges but adjourned two questions: whether her anticipated detention in the women’s prison at Korydallos would expose her to treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether extradition to serve the short balance of an existing sentence would interfere disproportionately with her article 8 rights.

The Greek authorities assured the court that she would be detained only in the New Wing at Korydallos and supplied information about its conditions. The court considered extensive expert and official evidence about overcrowding, staffing and the authority and reliability of those assurances. It also considered whether lengthy periods under curfew in the United Kingdom altered the article 8 balance.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Even assuming that the evidence about women’s prisons in Greece raised an article 3 issue, the assurances supplied by the Greek authorities dispelled any substantial grounds for believing that the appellant faced a real risk of prohibited treatment.

2. An assurance is a legitimate means by which a Council of Europe or EU state may dispel doubts about prison conditions. The factors stated in Othman, suitably adapted, guide the assessment of its quality and reliability. They are not a mechanical checklist. The court must examine the circumstances of the requested person’s case.

3. An assurance given by a responsible minister or senior official of an EU state is presumed to be complied with unless cogent evidence demonstrates otherwise. The assurance had been given at the highest institutional level. The requesting public prosecutor had undertaken to ensure strict compliance. Questions about whether particular Greek bodies were legally bound under domestic law did not displace the assurance or the mutual trust underlying European arrest warrant arrangements.

4. The assurances were detailed and specific. They required detention in the New Wing at Korydallos and addressed its conditions and overcrowding. The latest official figures indicated personal space of 3.63 square metres per detainee, above the level at which lack of space would itself raise an article 3 issue. The proposed daily regime and available facilities also supported compliance. There were therefore no substantial grounds for concluding that extradition and detention on the assured terms would infringe article 3.

5. Article 8 required proportionality, not exceptionality. There was a constant and weighty public interest in extraditing a fugitive to serve an outstanding sentence. The comparatively short unserved period was the only material consideration on the other side of the balance. The curfews had addressed the risk of flight arising from both the conviction and accusation elements of the warrant. They could not logically be attributed solely to the outstanding sentence. Any allowance following a retrial was for the Greek courts. This was not one of the rare cases in which article 8 barred extradition.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The present Divisional Court dismissed the remaining article 3 and article 8 grounds and therefore dismissed the appeal.

2. High Court (Administrative Court): Rafferty LJ and Underhill LJ quashed the extradition order relating to four withdrawn conviction warrants and dismissed most challenges to the fifth warrant. They adjourned the article 3 prison-conditions issue and the related article 8 issue for further evidence and determination.

3. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Purdy rejected the challenges to all five European arrest warrants and ordered extradition.