Scerbatchi v First District Court of Bucharest, Romania

Extradition must be refused where there are substantial grounds for believing that the requested person faces a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. In assessing that risk, the court must evaluate the particular detention conditions and the practical reliability of any assurances. There is no general requirement that an assurance identify every institution in which the person might be detained. Its required specificity depends on the evidence and circumstances. The assurance must nevertheless provide a clear, secure and practical guarantee of Article 3-compliant treatment. A general or bespoke assurance may suffice if it guarantees at least 3 square metres of personal space, subject to the approach in Mursic v Croatia and consideration of other detention conditions.

The appellant appealed against the decision of DJ Baraitser dated 18 January 2018 ordering his extradition to Romania under a European Arrest Warrant. He was wanted to stand trial for an alleged attempted kidnapping. Before the District Judge, the challenge relied on proportionality and Article 8; no Article 3 issue concerning detention conditions was raised.

On appeal, the appellant argued that Romanian prison and remand conditions created a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. The respondent relied on successive assurances concerning the specific remand centre, minimum personal space and conditions in prison facilities. The central issue was whether those assurances were sufficiently clear, specific and reliable to exclude a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The assurances provided by Romania were satisfactory and appropriate to address the risk of ill-treatment arising from overcrowding and prison conditions.
2. Article 3 prohibits extradition where the requested person would face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The assessment is fact-sensitive and requires consideration of the actual conditions, their cumulative effect, and the particular circumstances of the person concerned.
3. There is no general rule that an assurance must identify every prison or penal institution in which the person might be held. The necessary strength and scope of an assurance depend on the evidence concerning the requesting state and the requested person. The essential question is whether it provides a secure and practical guarantee against Article 3 ill-treatment.
4. For the pre-indictment period, the assurance identifying the Ialomita County Remand and Provisional Arrest Centre was clear and unambiguous. It guaranteed 4.6 square metres of personal space, together with specified facilities. The court was entitled to rely on the assurance notwithstanding the centre’s distance from Bucharest.
5. For the trial and sentence periods, an assurance guaranteeing at least 3 square metres of personal space, including the bed and furniture, was sufficient without identifying the particular prison. The evidence showed that compliant accommodation could be provided at Rahova. The assurance concerning Iasi, supplemented by a specific guarantee concerning daylight, ventilation, mould, infiltration and water, was also sufficient.
6. The court rejected the contention that general problems in the Romanian prison estate, or evidence concerning particular areas of a prison, necessarily made the assurances unreliable. The manner in which Romania secured compliance was a matter for the Romanian authorities.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the order of DJ Baraitser dated 18 January 2018; appeal dismissed.