GABRIEL CIOBANU v PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICE AT THE COURT OF PAVIA (ITALY)

Permission to appeal in an extradition case should be granted where an argument is reasonably arguable that the European Arrest Warrant does not clearly reflect the fair-trial guarantee required by Article 4a(1)(b) of the Framework Decision. A reference to appointment or assignment of a lawyer may not resolve whether the requested person gave the lawyer the required mandate.

Where an EAW faithfully reproduces an alternative guarantee, such as awareness of the scheduled trial and representation by a lawyer, that wording does not itself create ambiguity by failing to identify which other alternative route produced the awareness. Aggregated sentences raise a distinct arguable issue where the statutory minimum is met only by combining offending described in separate EAWs.

The appellant faced extradition to Italy under seven European Arrest Warrants issued on 21 November 2019. The warrants concerned separate offences and referred to an aggregated Italian sentence. District Judge Zani ordered extradition on 19 February 2021. Eady J refused permission on the papers, but the appellant renewed the application.

The renewed application concerned section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, including the fair-trial guarantees in Article 4a of the Framework Decision, and sections 10 and 65 concerning the statutory extradition threshold. The central questions were whether the EAWs created an ambiguity requiring further factual enquiry and whether aggregation across separate EAWs could satisfy the minimum sentence requirement.

1. Permission granted in part. Permission to appeal was granted on the section 20 mandate issue concerning EAW3 and on the section 65 issue concerning EAW5. Permission was refused on the other section 20 grounds.
2. The ambiguity or uncertainty gateway identified in Stryjecki v Poland [2016] EWHC 3309 (Admin) is not opened merely because an EAW uses the wording of one alternative guarantee in Article 4a(1)(b). The three alternatives reflected in the Framework Decision Annex are distinct. The wording concerning awareness of the scheduled trial and defence by a lawyer therefore did not require the EAW also to explain whether awareness arose from a summons or receipt of official information.
3. Kotsev v Bulgaria [2018] EWHC 3087 (Admin) was distinguishable because its gateway opened on wording which fell short, on the face of the EAW, of Article 4a(1)(d). Szatkowski v Poland [2019] EWHC 883 (Admin) was also distinguishable because it involved reliance on two apparently different alternatives.
4. The omission from EAW3 of the Article 4a(1)(b) requirement that the lawyer had been given a mandate was reasonably arguable as material. The natural language of the provision suggested that a lawyer appointed by the requested person or by the State must, in either event, have been given a mandate by that person. Further enquiry beyond the EAW was therefore warranted. EAW6 was different because the expert evidence established that the appellant had been represented by a retained lawyer of his choice.
5. Pilecki v Poland [2008] 1 WLR 7 and Zakrzewski v Poland [2013] UKSC 2 did not determine whether an aggregated sentence could satisfy the statutory minimum only by combining offending described in separate EAWs. That issue was reasonably arguable and warranted authoritative determination at a substantive hearing.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Zani ordered extradition on 19 February 2021. Eady J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 31 August 2021. On renewal, permission was granted on the section 20 mandate issue concerning EAW3 and the section 65 issue concerning EAW5, and refused on the remaining section 20 grounds.