Vasilev v Regional Prosecutor's Office, Silistra, Bulgaria

In extradition proceedings to a European Union Member State, serious prison deficiencies may establish a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The requested court must assess that risk concretely and precisely, including any assurances given by the requesting state. If the risk cannot be dispelled within a reasonable time, extradition must be refused.

Assurances may be accepted where they are specific, binding at the relevant levels of government and reliable. For a category 1 territory, mutual recognition and trust create a rebuttable presumption that assurances will be honoured.

Two appeals concerned extradition to Bulgaria under conviction European arrest warrants. Vasilev challenged an order made by Senior District Judge Riddle on 18 January 2016. Nikolov challenged an order made by District Judge Blake on 18 June 2015. Each appellant relied on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of prison conditions in Bulgaria.

The requesting authorities accepted that, without assurances, Bulgarian prison conditions created a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The common issue was whether ministerial assurances concerning accommodation were sufficiently specific, binding and reliable to remove that risk.

1. Appeals dismissed. Without the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice guarantees, extradition would have exposed both appellants to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2. Following Aranyosi v Higher Regional Court of Bremen Germany, the requested authority must assess the risk in a concrete and precise manner. If the risk cannot be ruled out within a reasonable time, it must decide whether to terminate the surrender procedure.
3. The approach in GS v Hungary was adopted. Assurances may in principle be accepted. The Othman v United Kingdom factors are relevant but do not form a rigid checklist. An assurance from a category 1 territory attracts a rebuttable presumption of reliability, and no particular form of words is required.
4. The Bulgarian assurances were specific. They required accommodation compliant with Article 3 and minimum European standards, including 4 square metres per person, daylight, natural ventilation and an individual toilet. They were legally grounded in the Minister of Justice's ordinance and were confirmed to bind the relevant prison authorities and to apply to both appellants.
5. The evidence concerning Bulgaria's failure to implement earlier recommendations was relevant but not determinative. Evidence that Bulgaria had complied with obligations concerning individual prisoners, together with available capacity and facilities in several prisons, showed that the assurances could be fulfilled. The presumption that they would be honoured was not rebutted.
6. The assurances' condition that the United Kingdom authority expressly request guarantees was satisfied. The appeals were dismissed on the basis of ordinary surrender pursuant to assurances. The court recommended that its judgment, or an equivalent express statement, accompany each surrender.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeals from extradition orders made by Senior District Judge Riddle on 18 January 2016 and District Judge Blake on 18 June 2015. Both appeals were dismissed.