Bacau District Court Romania v Iancu

Under the Extradition Act 2003, an executing court considering an Article 3 prison-conditions objection must follow the Aranyosi process. Generic evidence of systemic deficiencies requires a request for specific information, but no prior formal finding of a real risk is needed. If the issuing state misses a reasonable time limit without explanation, the court may decide on the material available. Admission of a late assurance remains a case-management decision subject to limited appellate review. Generic Romanian assurances cannot adequately address an identified systemic risk where specific concerns remain unresolved. The appeal was dismissed.

The Bacau District Court of Romania appealed against the discharge of Andy-Richard Iancu from extradition proceedings. The European arrest warrant sought his surrender to serve a Romanian custodial sentence. District Judge Hamilton concluded that a February 2020 assurance concerning Romanian prison conditions was inadequate under s. 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 3 ECHR, and ordered his discharge.

The appeal challenged the need for a further specific assurance, the refusal to admit a December 2020 assurance served after the hearing, and the judge’s interpretation of Gheorghe v Giurgiu District Court, Romania. The central issue was whether the judge’s procedural and substantive decisions lawfully barred surrender.

1. Disposition and scope of appeal. The appeal was dismissed. The scope of an appeal is determined by the operative part of the permission order, not by the reasons given for granting permission. Permission had not been limited, so all perfected grounds were considered.
2. The Aranyosi process. Under Article 15(2) of the Framework Decision, generic evidence of systemic or generalised detention deficiencies requires the executing authority to seek information specific to the conditions in which the requested person will be detained. A prior formal finding that the generic material establishes a real risk is unnecessary. The High Court followed the holding in Purcell v Public Prosecutor of Antwerp [2017] EWHC 1981 (Admin).
3. The request drafted by the CPS and approved by District Judge Hamilton was, in substance, an Article 15(2) request. Its formal transmission by the CPS did not alter that conclusion because the judge approved its contents, directed that it be sent, and communicated that approval to the issuing authority.
4. Late information and case management. Article 15(2) permits a time limit for supplementary information, and the Article 17 time limits are important. The issuing authority has a reciprocal obligation to respond. Where it fails to do so within the time limit, without explanation or a request for extension, the court may decide the Article 3 issue on the information available. Aranyosi did not require a further opportunity or admission of the December assurance.
5. Refusal to admit the late assurance was a case-management decision. Appellate intervention was appropriate only for an error of law or principle, or where the decision was plainly wrong. The judge could consider the previous adjournments, the expiry of the statutory time limits, the three-month delay, the absence of an explanation, the parties’ agreement to confine the hearing, and the need for rebuttal evidence and another hearing. This approach was supported by Director of Public Prosecutions v Petrie [2015] EWHC 48 (Admin), Alexander v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Marseille District Court of First Instance [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin), M & B v Preliminary Investigation Tribunal of Napoli, Italy [2018] EWHC 1808 (Admin), and Government of India v Dhir and Raijada [2020] EWHC 200 (Admin).
6. Judicial inconvenience was not ordinarily a proper consideration, and the judge’s expression of frustration was inappropriate. Nevertheless, the language did not vitiate an otherwise proper exercise of discretion based on valid case-management factors.
7. Adequacy of the assurance. Gheorghe v Giurgiu District Court, Romania [2020] EWHC 722 did not expressly decide the adequacy of the original generic assurance, but its reasoning supported the inference that specific further information was required. The recent decision in Bivolaru and Modovan v France (App Nos 40324/16 and 12623/17) reinforced the real risk in Romanian prisons and cautioned against exclusive reliance on generic assurances. The February assurance was therefore inadequate to address the systemic Article 3 risk.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Hamilton considered the Article 3 issue, found the February assurance inadequate, and ordered Mr Iancu’s discharge on 16 December 2020.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted without limitation. The appeal was dismissed.