Kirchanov & Ors v District Prosecutor's Office, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria & Ors

In extradition proceedings, assurances about Article 3-compliant prison conditions must provide a sufficient practical guarantee against ill-treatment. A presumption that the issuing state will honour its assurances may be displaced by repeated, serious and unexplained breaches, even where prison reforms are in progress. Where objective, reliable, specific and up-to-date evidence establishes systemic deficiencies, the court must make an individualised assessment of the real risk and may seek supplementary information before deciding whether to execute the European arrest warrant. The Extradition Act 2003 does not require an EAW to particularise the drugs involved where the statutory extradition-offence conditions and information requirements are otherwise met.

Three appeals arose from orders made by District Judge Ikram on 5 August 2016 for the extradition of the appellants to Bulgaria to serve sentences for sexual and drug-related offences. The appeals principally concerned whether assurances given by the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice about prison accommodation remained reliable after surrendered persons had been held in overcrowded cells and without promised sanitary facilities.

Mr Petrov also renewed challenges based on dual criminality and article 8 ECHR. Mr Ivanov renewed challenges based on his medical condition, oppression under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, and article 8. The central issues were whether the assurances remained reliable and what further information was required under Aranyosi and Caldarau.

The court delivered a single judgment to which both judges contributed.

1. The Bulgarian authorities accepted that, without effective assurances, prison conditions created a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 ECHR. The assurances promised at least 4 square metres per prisoner, daylight, natural ventilation and a self-contained sanitary facility.

2. The court applied the criteria identified in Sunca v Iasi Court of Law and others: the assurances must, if fulfilled, prevent article 3 treatment; be given in good faith; have a sound objective basis for expected fulfilment; and be capable of verification. Repeated breaches affecting three surrendered persons, continuing for significant periods and involving substantially inadequate living space and sanitation, were serious and unexplained. The presumption that the assurances would be fulfilled was therefore rebutted.

3. Reforms and newly adopted legislation might improve conditions in future, but delayed preventative remedies and uncertainty about the Debelt prison did not restore confidence at the date of decision. It was unnecessary to reach a concluded view on whether more precise prison-specific assurances and monitoring arrangements were required.

4. Applying Aranyosi and Caldarau, the evidence established objective, reliable, specific and up-to-date information about systemic or generalised deficiencies. There were substantial grounds to believe that each appellant faced a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The court requested supplementary information identifying the institutions and cells in which each appellant would be held, confirming the promised space and sanitary facilities, and explaining the monitoring mechanisms.

5. Mr Petrov’s EAW satisfied sections 2, 10 and 65 of the Extradition Act 2003. Those provisions did not require the drugs involved in the relevant offences to be particularised. There was no obvious inconsistency in the EAW and permission was refused on the dual-criminality ground. Permission was also refused on article 8 grounds.

6. Mr Ivanov’s renewed grounds concerning article 3, section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, and article 8 were rejected. The court agreed with the District Judge’s conclusions that his medical circumstances did not make extradition unjust, oppressive or disproportionate.

The court refused permission on the renewed grounds and sought supplementary information before determining the effect of the prison assurances on surrender.

1. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Ikram ordered the extradition of all seven requested persons on 5 August 2016.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The three appellants appealed with permission. The court found that the assurances had ceased to be reliable, requested supplementary information, and refused the renewed grounds advanced by Mr Petrov and Mr Ivanov.