ELENA ANDREEA GRECU v GORJ COUNTY COURT (ROMANIA)

An extradition appeal succeeds only where the first-instance decision was wrong or decisive fresh evidence demonstrates that extradition should have been refused. In an Article 4 challenge, the court may assess both whether there are strong or substantial grounds for believing that extradition creates a real risk of modern slavery and whether extradition would expose the person to a flagrant denial of Article 4 rights, pending a definitive resolution of the applicable threshold.

Article 8 requires a proportionality assessment balancing family-life interference against the weighty public interest in extradition. Fresh evidence must be decisive, not merely capable of making the balance more finely poised.

The appellant appealed against an order for her extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of seven years and six months for trafficking two teenage girls from Romania to Italy for sexual exploitation.

She argued that extradition would breach Articles 4 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Her Article 3 ground was stayed pending related proceedings. She relied on alleged domestic abuse and coercive control, a modern-slavery referral, and fresh evidence that her partner might not care for her son if she were extradited.

The central issues were whether the District Judge had applied the correct Article 4 threshold, whether his factual findings were irrational, and whether the fresh evidence required a different Article 8 proportionality assessment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Article 3 ground remained stayed. The appellant failed to establish that the District Judge’s decision was wrong or that the fresh evidence required extradition to be discharged.
2. For Article 4, the court considered both possible formulations: strong or substantial grounds for believing that extradition created a real risk of modern slavery, and the more demanding flagrant-denial threshold. The court did not finally resolve which test governed because the appeal failed under either formulation.
3. The irrationality challenge failed. The District Judge had accepted that the appellant had suffered violence but was not persuaded that her brother or former partner had inflicted it. That conclusion was supported by the absence of independent evidence, the appellant’s convictions, the evidential context, and the District Judge’s assessment of credibility. An extradition appeal is not a rehearing of oral evidence.
4. The Article 4 case also failed because the appellant’s trafficking convictions could not be revisited, there was a presumption that Romania would comply with its international obligations, and no clear, cogent and compelling evidence displaced that presumption. The later conclusive-grounds decision did not establish that the District Judge had acted irrationally.
5. Under Article 8, the child’s interests were a primary consideration but not paramount. The unsigned and undated statement about future childcare was insufficiently explained and raised questions when compared with the evidence previously given. Even if accepted, it was not decisive. The gravity of the offending and the appellant’s fugitive status placed the public interest in extradition at or near its highest. The new evidence made proportionality more finely balanced but would not have changed the result.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order made on 5 November 2021 was dismissed. The Article 3 ground was stayed pending related Divisional Court proceedings.