Zlatko Petrov v Regional Court in Sofia, Bulgaria

Where the presumption of compliance has been rebutted in relation to a requesting state, extradition assurances must provide a sound and sufficiently specific basis for concluding that the requested person will not face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court must assess the assurances as a whole, having regard to mutual trust between States, the conditions guaranteed, the proposed place of detention, the practical mechanisms for implementation and verification, and any history of non-compliance. An assurance need not answer every criticism in a monitoring report. It is sufficient if, on its proper construction, fulfilment would prevent an Article 3 breach.

The applicant sought permission to appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Leake’s order for his extradition to Bulgaria following a conviction for theft.

The sole ground was that detention in the old block at Sofia Prison or at Kremikovtsi prison hostel would create a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, notwithstanding two assurances supplied by Bulgaria. The applicant argued that the assurances were vague, failed to identify adequately the place of detention and did not answer deficiencies identified in a 2022 CPT report. The central issue was whether the assurances sufficiently dispelled the alleged risk.

1. Permission refused. The applicant had not shown arguable substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. The court applied the requirement that a real risk must be more than fanciful, as explained in R (Ullah) v Special Immigration Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323. Following Neshkov v Bulgaria (27 January 2015), the ordinary presumption of compliance had been rebutted in relation to Bulgaria, so assurances were required.
3. The assurances had to be assessed with due regard to mutual trust between States, as emphasised in Zabolotnyi v Mareszalka District Court, Hungary [2021] UKSC 14. The relevant considerations included whether fulfilment would prevent Article 3 treatment, whether the assurances were given in good faith, whether there was a sound objective basis for believing they would be fulfilled, and whether fulfilment could be verified.
4. The assurances, read together, expressly guaranteed at least four square metres of living space excluding sanitary facilities, access to toilets and running water, and accommodation in the Sofia Prison main building, its hospital or one of its hostels. The second assurance supplied further information about repairs, renovation, hygiene, ventilation, daylight, showers, pest control and outdoor access.
5. The court distinguished Vangelov v Bulgaria (No. 2) [2021] EWHC 427 (Admin), where the assurance concerning the relevant detention location did not provide equivalent guarantees concerning personal space and sanitary facilities. The assurances here did not need to address every criticism in the CPT report, provided their terms would prevent an Article 3 breach. The transfer mechanism in Article 62(5) of the IPSDCA, and the availability of CPT and Bulgarian Helsinki Committee monitoring, supported the objective basis and verifiability of the assurances.
6. The District Judge’s conclusion that the intended places of detention were sufficiently clarified was plainly open to him. It was not arguably wrong to conclude that the assurances dispelled the real risk.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal from the District Judge’s extradition decision was refused.
• District Judge Leake: On 16 December 2024, ordered the applicant’s extradition to Bulgaria after considering further information and a second prison assurance.