Georgi Ivanchev Lazarov v Prosecutors Office in Varna (Bulgaria)

In extradition proceedings, an Article 8 proportionality challenge requires the personal and family impact of extradition to be balanced against the strong public interest in honouring treaty obligations and respecting a foreign conviction and sentence.

A lengthy period spent on electronically monitored bail may be relevant to proportionality even where it is not deductible from the foreign sentence. The court may assess permission on the most favourable realistic factual basis for the applicant, but permission should be refused where there is no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would succeed.

The appellant sought renewal of an application for permission to appeal against an order requiring his extradition to Bulgaria to serve a three-year custodial sentence for cannabis offences. The first-instance judge had concluded that extradition was compatible with the Article 8 rights of the appellant and his family.

Earlier Article 3 prison-condition and section 2 issuing-authority issues had fallen away. The remaining issue was whether it was reasonably arguable that the Article 8 conclusion was wrong, having regard to the appellant’s family life, residence and employment in the United Kingdom, the passage of time, and his prolonged electronically monitored curfew.

1. Permission refused. The court determined the renewed application on the papers and after hearing the appellant, who arrived late. The appellant had received adequate notice, and no sufficient reason had been shown to adjourn.
2. The appropriate question was whether it was reasonably arguable that the first-instance judge had been wrong to find extradition compatible with the appellant’s and his family members’ Article 8 rights. The court considered the Article 8 balancing exercise afresh on the most favourable realistic basis for the appellant, including without assuming that he was a fugitive.
3. The 51 days spent in qualifying remand would be deducted from the Bulgarian sentence. The electronically monitored curfew would not be deducted under Bulgarian law. Nevertheless, the very lengthy period of tagged bail remained a relevant consideration in the Article 8 proportionality assessment.
4. The appellant’s family ties, role as breadwinner, roots in the United Kingdom, good character since arrival, the age of the offending and the hardship caused by extradition all weighed against extradition. Those considerations were decisively outweighed by the strong public interest in honouring treaty obligations, respecting the Bulgarian conviction and sentence, and extraditing the appellant to face his responsibilities for sufficiently serious offending.
5. There was no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would establish that extradition was disproportionate. The renewed application for permission to appeal was therefore refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Extradition was ordered by District Judge Blake on 20 March 2019. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers on 15 August 2019. The renewed application was refused by the High Court on 2 December 2021.
• The earlier extradition order had been quashed by judicial review in October 2018, followed by a rehearing.