Viorel Nonea v Judecatoria Oradea Romania

On an extradition request, specialty arrangements require more than statutory incorporation of the specialty rule. The court must be satisfied that the requesting state has practical and effective arrangements to prevent the requested person being dealt with for offences for which extradition was not granted.

The requested person bears the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that adequate arrangements are absent. A strong presumption exists that a Member State will comply with its international obligations, and compelling evidence is required to displace it. Differences or uncertainty in foreign case law will not necessarily suffice, particularly where the requesting state provides a statutory safeguard and an available domestic remedy.

The appellant had been convicted in Romania of six offences and sentenced to a single resulting penalty of two years and 10 months. The District Judge ordered extradition for three driving-without-a-licence offences but refused extradition for three related offences concerning vehicle registration, as those offences lacked an equivalent in English law.

The appeal concerned only whether extradition for the remaining offences would breach the principle of specialty under section 17 of the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant argued that Romanian sentencing practice made it impossible effectively to disaggregate the resulting penalty and prevent punishment for the non-extradition offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that Romania had specialty arrangements in place and that extradition was not barred.
2. Under section 27(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appeal could succeed only if the District Judge ought to have decided a question differently and, had he done so, would have been required to order the appellant’s discharge.
3. Section 17 requires the court to consider whether the requesting territory has practical and effective arrangements ensuring compliance with specialty, not merely whether the rule has been enacted in domestic legislation. The burden lay on the appellant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that adequate arrangements were absent. A strong presumption supported compliance by a Member State with its international obligations.
4. The guidance in Enasoaie was properly treated as persuasive. Although obiter to that decision, it was given after full argument, careful consideration, and with the express purpose of assisting judges dealing with similar specialty issues. The limited additional evidence concerning Romanian District Court decisions did not amount to compelling evidence of systemic failure, especially where the expert accepted that Romanian decisions went in both directions and that Romanian law did not operate by binding precedent.
5. Romanian statutory law enshrined the specialty principle, and the evidence did not establish that Romanian courts would interpret it in a manner inimical to the appellant’s rights. Any later breach would ordinarily be addressed through remedies in Romania or, where necessary, by recourse to the ECHR or CJEU.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal from the extradition decision dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 5 July 2021 District Judge Robinson ordered extradition for three offences and refused extradition for three vehicle-registration offences. The latter decision was not challenged.