Victor Constantin v Court in Bucharest (Romania)

In a conviction extradition appeal, the court’s task is confined to the grounds on which permission to appeal was granted. Article 8 proportionality requires an evaluative balancing of the private and family-life factors against the strong public interests in honouring extradition obligations, mutual confidence and preventing safe havens. The court must not revisit guilt or innocence or impose its own sentencing assessment. The seriousness of the offending may be assessed by reference to the sentence imposed by the requesting state, while delay may carry less weight where the requested person knew of the investigation and proceedings. The right to legal assistance of a person’s own choosing under Article 6(3)(c) is not absolute, and Article 11 permits proportionate regulation of legal professions and professional bodies.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Romania under a conviction arrest warrant. The Romanian proceedings concerned unlawful practice of a profession and unlawful use of professional names and robes while acting as a lawyer outside the recognised Romanian bar structure.

A District Judge ordered extradition from Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 17 May 2023. Permission to appeal was granted only on whether the Article 8 proportionality balance, applying the approach in Celinski, should have been decided differently. Other grounds, including challenges to the Romanian court’s status and wider arguments concerning Articles 5, 6, 7 and 11, were refused permission or fell outside the appeal.

The central issue was whether the District Judge’s conclusion that extradition was compatible with Article 8 was wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The order that the appellant be extradited was upheld pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003. Certification for a Supreme Court appeal and the associated application for leave were refused.
2. The appeal was confined to the Article 8 proportionality issue identified in the grant of permission. The appellant could not use the Article 8 requirement of accordance with the law as a back-door route to raise other points that had been refused permission or were outside the granted ground.
3. The Article 8 assessment involved evaluating the weight of relevant factors rather than performing a simple arithmetic exercise. Factors against extradition included the appellant’s non-fugitive status, the passage of time, his roots and worthwhile life in the United Kingdom, his good character, studies and family’s financial dependence. Those factors had to be assessed alongside the public interests in honouring extradition obligations, avoiding safe havens, mutual confidence in Romanian judicial authorities and respect for the requesting state’s sentencing regime.
4. The extradition court must not use the Article 8 exercise to debate guilt or innocence or to substitute its own sentencing regime. It should assume that the sentence reflects the gravity of the offending as assessed by the requesting state court with the necessary knowledge. Delay carries less weight where the requested person knew of the investigation and proceedings and built private or family life while aware of the risk of extradition.
5. The District Judge had fairly considered the uncertainty before the Romanian Supreme Court’s 2015 decision, the appellant’s status as far from a rogue lawyer, the original fine and the continuing family and private-life consequences. The appellant nevertheless continued to act and hold himself out as a lawyer after the final Romanian determination. The public interest decisively outweighed the Article 8 factors against extradition. Even on a substitutionary retaking of the decision, the same result followed.
6. The wider arguments under Articles 6, 11, 5 and 7 were rejected or treated as outside the scope of the appeal. Article 6(3)(c) does not confer an absolute right to choose any person as legal representative, and Article 11 does not prevent legitimate public-interest regulation of legal professions and professional associations.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the Westminster Magistrates’ Court extradition order was dismissed. Certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court were refused.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The District Judge ordered extradition on 17 May 2023.
• Permission stage: Permission was initially refused on the papers by Wall J, but Farbey J granted permission on 7 December 2023 on the limited Article 8 proportionality ground.