George Ardeleanu v Tribunal of Bacau, Romania

A conviction warrant remains valid where its particulars are deficient but the omission is capable of being remedied by further information incorporated into the warrant. Only a wholesale or fundamental failure of particularisation renders the warrant a nullity.

Unlawfully obtained evidence does not, without more, establish a flagrant denial of justice. The court may assess the whole evidential picture, including whether the evidence would probably have affected the outcome.

In Article 8 extradition cases, the public interest generally prevails unless interference with family life would have exceptionally severe consequences. Ordinary hardship, including anxiety, depression, logistical difficulties and financial consequences, will not ordinarily meet that threshold.

The applicant sought permission to appeal the decision of District Judge Matson dated 31 January 2025 ordering his extradition to Romania under a conviction warrant. The warrant sought his return to serve a sentence of six years and six months for organised crime, computer-related offences and fraudulent financial operations.

He argued that the warrant failed to particularise an earlier sentence merged into the sentence sought, that his conviction involved unlawfully obtained wiretap evidence contrary to Article 5 of the ECHR, and that extradition would disproportionately interfere with family life under Article 8. He also sought authority for further psychological evidence concerning his wife.

The central issues were whether the warrant was invalid, whether the evidential complaint disclosed a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice, and whether the new family evidence could arguably alter the Article 8 proportionality assessment.

1. Section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. The purpose of the particularisation requirement is to provide the requested person with full details of the offences and the sentences for which extradition is sought. The approach in Edutanu v Iasi Court of Law [2016] EWHC 124 (Admin) must be read in the light of Alexander v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Marseille District Court of First Instance, France; Benedetto v Court of Palermo, Italy [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin). Further information may cure defects and be considered together with the warrant. Only a wholesale or fundamental failure makes the warrant a nullity.
2. The warrant referred to the merged and activated suspended sentence and supplied relevant identifying details. The applicant knew of the underlying proceedings and had appealed them. The defect was therefore capable of remedy and the challenge under Extradition Act 2003, section 2, was unarguable.
3. Article 5. The fact that some evidence was obtained unlawfully did not, by itself, amount to a flagrant denial of justice. The judge was entitled to consider the whole evidential picture, including the expert’s qualification that it could not be said with certainty that the outcome would have been different without the wiretaps. The investigation had also produced other evidence.
4. Article 8. The public interest in extradition for serious offences and a substantial custodial sentence will ordinarily outweigh family rights unless the consequences are exceptionally severe, applying the approach in Andrysiewicz v Poland [2025] UKSC 23. The wife’s reported anxiety, depression, driving difficulties and employment problems, even taken at their highest, amounted to ordinary hardship rather than exceptionally severe consequences. The judge’s balancing exercise was reasonably open to her.
5. The application for further evidence was refused and permission to appeal was refused.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Matson ordered extradition on 31 January 2025. Mr Justice Bourne refused permission on the papers on 20 May 2025. Mr Justice Sweeting refused further evidence and renewed permission on 8 October 2025.