Karoly Marosan v Court of Cluj Napoca (Romania)

Certification requires a point of law to be both involved in the decision and of general public importance. Those requirements are distinct from the further question whether the point ought to be considered by the Supreme Court. A point may raise questions of law and principle, and may be unsettled, without having the requisite general public importance. The rarity of the factual situation and the absence of other published decisions in which the issue was material may indicate that it lacks broader impact. Where certification is refused, leave to appeal must also be refused.

The court had previously determined the appellant’s extradition case in [2021] EWHC 3098 (Admin). The respondent then applied under section 32(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 for certification of two points concerning dual detention, qualifying remand under Article 26 of the EU Framework Decision, and Article 8 ECHR proportionality. It also sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The central issue was whether the proposed points were questions of law of general public importance and, separately, whether they ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.

1. Certification requirements. Section 32(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires a point of law to be involved in the decision and to be of general public importance. Those requirements are separate from whether the point ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.
2. The proposed points concerning dual detention and qualifying remand under Article 26 of the EU Framework Decision were questions of law and engaged questions of principle. That did not make them matters of general public importance.
3. The earlier cases of Berk, Newman and Petkowski concerned particular factual situations, with Petkowski leaving open the issue now decided. In Orsos, the requesting state conceded the point. The absence of another published judgment in which the issue had arisen and been material indicated that it was exceptional rather than of broad impact.
4. The court also noted that the respondent had invited it to address Article 26 deductibility and that the appellant would in any event have served a further nine weeks in custody in the United Kingdom. The circumstances disclosed no relevant injustice arising from non-extradition.
5. The application to certify points of law of general public importance was refused. The application for leave to appeal was consequently refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): In [2021] EWHC 3098 (Admin), the court gave the substantive judgment in the extradition case. In the present judgment, certification and leave to appeal were refused.