Alexandru-Ionuț Catană v Tribunalul Gorj, Romania

Under section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, the court asks whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the competent authorities have not decided to charge or try the requested person, and that absence from the requesting territory is not the sole reason. If that threshold is met, the requesting authority bears the statutory burden of proof.

A decision to try need not be formal, final, irrevocable or trial-ready. It may be conditional and may coexist with continuing investigation or procedural scrutiny. The inquiry concerns whether the competent authorities have made prosecution decisions, not whether every procedural step has been validly completed or whether the prosecution is likely to succeed. A defective indictment or review by a court does not, without more, undo an existing decision to prosecute.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Briony Clarke’s order at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 24 February 2025 for his extradition to Romania. The District Judge’s reasons were given on 24 March 2025. Permission to appeal was granted by Ellenbogen J on 14 August 2025.

The appeal concerned whether extradition was barred by absence of a prosecution decision under section 11(1)(aa), read with section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant argued that the Romanian authorities had not decided to charge and try him, or that the prosecutor was not a competent authority to make the decision. The central issue was whether the indictment, subsequent preliminary-chamber decisions and continuing appeal demonstrated that the necessary prosecution decisions had been made.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge had reached the correct conclusion that section 12A did not bar extradition.
2. Section 12A is applied by reference to the position at the extradition hearing. The inquiry is highly fact-sensitive. It has two stages: first, whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the required decisions have not been made and that the requested person’s absence is not the sole reason; and, secondly, if that threshold is met, whether the requesting authority proves the matters specified in section 12A(1)(b).
3. The relevant question is whether decisions have been made by competent authorities to charge and to try. It is not whether the person has already been formally charged, whether the case is trial-ready, whether procedural steps were correctly taken, or whether the prosecution is likely to succeed.
4. A decision to charge is made when there is sufficient evidence under the requesting state’s procedure to make the allegation. A decision to try is a decision to proceed with taking the defendant to trial. Neither decision requires particular formality, finality or irrevocability. A decision may be conditional, subject to review, or made while further investigation continues.
5. On the evidence, the Romanian prosecutor had decided to charge the appellant and proceed with his trial. The registration of the indictment at the Sibiu Court initiated proceedings directed towards trial. The preliminary-chamber procedure was an intermediate stage concerning the legality and regularity of the indictment and evidence; it was not shown to be the exclusive source of the decision to try.
6. The findings that the indictment was defective and that some evidence was inadmissible did not establish that the prosecutor’s decisions were unlawful, reversed or absent. The pending appeal reinforced, rather than displaced, the evidence that the prosecution continued to be pursued. Section 12A ensures a clear intention to bring the person to trial, not that the case is court-ready or that all delay is eliminated.
7. The District Judge was mistaken in suggesting that the Gorj Court remained seized of the prosecution, but that error was immaterial. She considered the relevant evidence and her conclusion was plainly right.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2026] EWHC 182 (Admin) — appeal dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Briony Clarke ordered extradition on 24 February 2025; reasons were given on 24 March 2025.