Eduard Tabacaru v Iasi Court of Appeal Romania

Specific assurances from a requesting state will normally attract a presumption of compliance, even where the state has lost a general presumption concerning its prison estate. Cogent and decisive evidence is required to establish that an individual assurance will not be honoured. General evidence of poor prison conditions, without evidence of non-compliance with comparable assurances, will ordinarily be insufficient.

In an Article 8 extradition proportionality assessment, family hardship, delay, fugitivity, the seriousness of the offending and existing bail restrictions must be weighed in the circumstances of the case. Fresh evidence is relevant only where it is decisive. Fugitivity concerns whether the requested person placed himself beyond the reach of the requesting state’s legal process.

The appellant appealed against a 10 October 2019 order by District Judge Zani for his extradition to Romania to serve a three-year sentence for false accounting and tax evasion. Permission was granted on Article 3 grounds concerning Romanian prison conditions and on Article 8 grounds concerning private and family life.

The Article 3 issue arose against the background of the updated October 2022 prison assurance and fresh evidence concerning conditions at Rahova, Vaslui and Iasi prisons. The Article 8 issue concerned the appellant’s family circumstances, delay, alleged fugitivity, the seriousness of the offending and lengthy bail conditions.

1. Article 3. The appeal on prison conditions failed. Applying Marinescu v Romania [2022] EWHC 2317 (Admin), the October 2022 assurance adequately covered the appellant’s minimum personal space and conditions respecting human dignity at the prisons where he was likely to be held. Following Zabolotnyi v Mateszalka District Court, Hungary [2021] UKSC 14, a specific assurance normally attracts a presumption of compliance. Cogent evidence must be decisive before that presumption is displaced.
2. The fresh evidence was not decisive. It principally concerned general conditions rather than non-compliance with assurances given to returned persons. The evidence also showed that Romania was attempting remedial measures. The report concerning cell 4.4 at Iasi did not establish that an applicable assurance had been breached or that the conditions failed to meet the relevant Article 3 standard.
3. Article 8. The fresh family evidence was admitted de bene esse but was not decisive. The District Judge was entitled to recognise the hardship to the appellant, his partner and the children while taking account of the partner’s financial independence, her role as main carer and the existence of a care plan.
4. The delay between the offending, conviction, certification, issue of the European Arrest Warrant and arrest did not make the District Judge’s proportionality assessment wrong. The proceedings in Romania had been active, and some later delay resulted from the appellant’s decision not to surrender. The seriousness of tax evasion, the public interest in extradition and the appellant’s fugitivity remained weighty factors.
5. Fugitivity asks whether the appellant placed himself beyond the reach of Romanian legal process. Although the Romanian authorities knew his United Kingdom address and there were no restrictions on departure, he returned to the United Kingdom knowing that he had been convicted and that his sentence appeal remained unresolved. The finding of fugitivity was therefore justified. De Zorzi v France [2019] EWHC 2062 (Admin) was materially different.
6. The existing bail conditions carried some, but limited, weight. The Romanian authorities were to be informed of their nature and extent. Brexit-related uncertainty did not carry significant weight because the case was not finely balanced. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Sir Ross Cranston dismissed the appeal against District Judge Zani’s extradition order. The appeal had been permitted on Article 3 and Article 8 grounds.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani ordered extradition on 10 October 2019.