Adamescu v Bucharest Appeal Court Criminal Division, Romania

In extradition proceedings, an international arbitral tribunal’s provisional recommendation cannot halt a criminal extradition process created by EU law and implemented by statute, particularly where the person seeking the stay is not a party to the arbitration. The arbitration tribunal’s enforcement mechanisms remain matters for that tribunal. Permission to appeal may properly be stayed where related cases may clarify materially similar issues, especially prison conditions and state assurances. Bail must be reconsidered where prolonged detention materially changes the balance, even though an existing risk of absconding or obstruction remains. Stringent conditions may adequately manage that risk, making continued detention disproportionate.

The appellant faced extradition to Romania under an accusation European arrest warrant concerning two bribery charges. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court dismissed his abuse of process application and later dismissed the extradition appeal. He sought permission to appeal on five remaining grounds: abuse of process, political motivation, extraneous considerations, incompatibility with article 6 of the ECHR, and incompatibility with article 3.

The court also considered a renewed bail application. The central questions were whether permission should be refused or stayed, whether the ICSID tribunal’s provisional measures order required the extradition process to be halted, and whether continued detention remained proportionate.

1. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused on the abuse of process ground. Permission on the political motivation, article 6 and article 3 grounds was stayed pending judgment in The Baia Mare Court Romania v Stephan Varga (CO/2784/2018) and Turcanu v Targu-Jui Law Court (CO/3623/2018). Those cases raised related issues concerning Romanian prison conditions and the reliability of assurances. Joining the cases was impracticable because this case was not ready for a substantive hearing.
2. Abuse of process. The ICSID tribunal’s provisional measures order recommended that Romania withdraw the European arrest warrant and refrain from reissuing it pending the final arbitral award. It could not oust the extradition process, which operated through machinery originating in EU law and implemented by the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant was not a party to the arbitration, and enforcement of the order was a matter for the ICSID tribunal. The Romanian courts had also dismissed his challenge. The magistrates’ court was therefore entitled to refuse a stay.
3. Bail. Under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the ordinary bail test in section 4 of and Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 applied. The previous forgery supported a continuing risk of flight or obstruction. However, nearly a year’s further detention, together with the uncertain and lengthy timetable for determining permission, materially changed the position. Continued detention was no longer proportionate. The proposed residence, financial, reporting, electronic-curfew and passport conditions adequately managed the risk. Bail was granted subject to those conditions and further order.
4. The appellant was directed, if pursuing permission, to file a single composite skeleton, concise grounds, and a Scott Schedule identifying and justifying fresh evidence under section 27(4)(a)(b)(c) of the Act, having regard to Hungary v Fenyvasi. The respondent was given corresponding time to respond.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2019] EWHC 525 (Admin). Permission to appeal was refused on the abuse of process ground, stayed on the remaining grounds, and bail was granted.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani dismissed the extradition appeal on 13 April 2018 and had earlier dismissed the abuse of process application.
• High Court: Kerr J refused bail on 29 March 2018.