Shumba & Ors v Public Prosecutor In Nanterre County Court, France & Ors

In extradition cases alleging a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, the court must assess current conditions and may proceed on the basis of mutual trust between Member States. Where detainees have at least 3m² of floor space, a private sleeping place and freedom of movement, the strong presumption arising from severe lack of space does not apply. If personal space is between 3m² and 4m², the court must assess other physical conditions cumulatively, including exercise, light, ventilation, temperature, toilet facilities and hygiene. Specific information and meaningful assurances from the requested state may answer the risk, particularly where domestic oversight bodies actively address prison conditions.

These were three appeals concerning extradition to France. In an earlier judgment, the Court dismissed challenges based on passage of time and Article 8, but deferred final determination of the common Article 3 ground because the evidence did not establish the amount of space likely to be available in the relevant prisons.

The French Ministry of Justice supplied further information about likely detention locations, cell space, movement, prison conditions and measures addressing overcrowding and vermin. The central issue was whether that information established substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose any appellant to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

1. Appeals dismissed. The further information answered the Court’s central concern about overcrowding and did not establish a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.
2. The Court proceeded on the basis of mutual trust and confidence between Member States and assessed current rather than historic conditions. The Ministry of Justice’s information established that each appellant would have at least 3m² of floor space, a private sleeping place and the ability to move freely within the cell.
3. The strong presumption of an Article 3 violation associated with severe lack of personal space, identified in Muršić v Croatia [2017] 65 EHRR 1 and Ananyev v Russia [2012] 55 EHRR 18, therefore did not arise on the evidence.
4. There remained a real possibility that an appellant would receive between 3m² and 4m² of personal space. The Court therefore considered other physical conditions, including outdoor exercise, natural light and air, ventilation, room temperature, private toilet facilities, sanitation and hygiene. The information about daily exercise, activities, meals, time outside cells and measures addressing bedbugs and rats did not establish inappropriate conditions sufficient, individually or cumulatively, to engage Article 3.
5. The Court was entitled to take account of the active role of the French administrative tribunals in addressing prison conditions and of the Ministry’s specific assurance. The assurance followed detailed, direct responses to the Court’s questions and was more than a bland assurance. The Court concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose the appellants to inhuman or degrading treatment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): In the earlier judgment, [2018] EWHC 1762 (Admin), the Court dismissed parts of the first and second appellants’ appeals but deferred the common Article 3 issue pending further information from the French authorities. In this supplemental judgment, the Court dismissed all three appeals.