Taranenco v Bucharest Secton 1 Court (Romania)

In an extradition appeal concerning a conviction warrant, the warrant and further information must be read constructively and as a whole. Translation difficulties or imprecise terminology do not invalidate it where its sensible meaning supplies the particulars required by the Extradition Act 2003. A merged sentence remains valid where the offence specified in the warrant is identified and the sentence for another offence is absorbed rather than added to it.

For absence from trial, the court may rely on the issuing state’s explanation of its own procedural law, subject to mutual trust. A person who knowingly fails to notify the court of a change of address may be deliberately absent even if unaware of the hearing. Procedural conditions governing access to a retrial do not, without more, defeat the statutory entitlement to a retrial.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Romania under a European arrest warrant issued to enforce a four-year custodial sentence for deception. He had initially been acquitted, but the prosecution appealed and the Romanian Court of Appeal convicted him in his absence. The sentence was merged with previously imposed suspended sentences for unrelated offences.

The appeal concerned whether the warrant, read with further information, contained sufficient particulars under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether the requirements concerning conviction in absentia under section 20 were satisfied. The central issues were whether the appellant had deliberately absented himself from the trial and whether he would in any event have a right to a retrial.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to order extradition.
2. Under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, the EAW and further information had to be read constructively and as a whole. The court should identify the sensible meaning of material supplied in good faith and translated from another language. Overly forensic scrutiny of individual expressions could obscure the intended meaning.
3. The warrant sufficiently identified the Unicredit deception offence. The further information explained that the appellant had first been acquitted, that the prosecution appeal resulted in conviction, and that the previous suspended sentences for the Metcons offences were disaggregated and absorbed into, rather than added to, the four-year sentence. The requirements of section 2 were therefore met. Edutanu v Romania [2016] EWHC 124 required careful scrutiny in merged-sentence cases, but did not assist the appellant on the facts.
4. Section 20 was to be construed consistently with article 4a of the 2009 Framework Decision, following Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania [2016] EWHC 353. The relevant trial was the hearing which resulted in the conviction and sentence. The appellant had been properly summoned under Romanian law, had been warned of his obligation to notify changes of address, and had left Romania without providing a foreign address. There was ample evidence that he deliberately absented himself.
5. That conclusion disposed of the section 20 issue. Alternatively, the EAW stated that the appellant would receive notice of a right to a retrial. Procedural conditions governing the exercise of that right did not remove the entitlement itself. The approach in Nastase v Italy [2012] EWHC 3671 supported that conclusion.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order dated 24 July 2019 was dismissed. Permission to appeal had been granted by Farbey J on 27 November 2019.