Katerina Yaneva v Bulgarian Judicial Authority

In extradition cases, an Article 3 challenge requires strong grounds for believing that the requested person faces a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Where the risk arises from fellow prisoners, the question is whether the requesting state will provide reasonable protection. Assurances from a Part 1 territory may be relied upon where they address the identified risks and there is no reason to doubt their good faith, fulfilment or verification. A report describing possible Article 3 violations does not establish the required real risk merely because it identifies serious structural concerns. An assurance promising protection against inhuman or degrading treatment may include an obligation to take reasonable steps to protect against inter-prisoner violence.

The appellant sought permission to appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order of Westminster Magistrates’ Court requiring her surrender to Bulgaria to serve the balance of a prison sentence. She argued that extradition would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because she would later be transferred from a mother-and-baby unit into the general prison estate.

The District Judge had relied on an assurance concerning accommodation and minimum living space, but had not addressed the specific risks associated with the appellant’s pregnancy and subsequent detention. Freedman J ordered a rolled-up hearing and permitted fresh evidence, including a report by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. The central issue was whether that evidence established a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment and, if so, whether the Bulgarian assurance provided sufficient protection.

1. Permission and outcome. Permission to appeal was granted on the single Article 3 ground, but the appeal was dismissed. The order for extradition therefore stood.
2. The applicable threshold was whether there were strong grounds for believing that the appellant faced a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment if returned. Where the risk arose from non-state actors, including fellow prisoners, the relevant question was whether the requesting state could provide reasonable protection. The court also had to assess the quality and reliability of the assurance against the general human-rights situation in Bulgaria.
3. The evidence was sufficient to establish that detention in the mother-and-baby unit until the child’s first birthday would not breach Article 3. No further assurance was required for that period.
4. The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee report identified structural concerns, including inter-prisoner violence, frozen bank accounts, medical-care difficulties, bedbugs and poor conditions at the Ramanusha hostel. The court distinguished the possibility of a violation from the real risk required by Article 3. The report did not conclude that the appellant personally faced such a real risk in relation to the bank-account or medical-care concerns.
5. The assurance addressed the Ramanusha concern because it promised private sanitary facilities and running water and provided for transfer to alternative accommodation meeting the relevant standards. The assurance was given in good faith, and its fulfilment was capable of verification through independent monitoring mechanisms.
6. Inter-prisoner violence was the most serious concern. The evidence showed an ongoing problem and difficulties caused by the closure of the high-security ward. Nevertheless, the assurance expressly committed Bulgaria to safeguarding the appellant against inhuman or degrading treatment. Applying the principle of mutual trust, that commitment required reasonable protection against violence by fellow prisoners. No further assurance was necessary.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appellant was granted permission to appeal, but the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: on 26 April 2024, ordered the appellant’s surrender to Bulgaria under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.