Lukasz Chromczuk & Ors v Polish Judicial Authority

In extradition proceedings involving a Council of Europe or European Union state, the presumption that the state will comply with Article 3 ECHR is displaced only by clear, cogent and compelling evidence of a systemic or otherwise sufficiently generalised real risk of prohibited ill-treatment. The evidence must be objective, reliable, specific and properly updated. Serious but individual incidents will not suffice where the material also shows investigation and remedial action and does not establish systemic conditions. A foreign court’s decision applying a different threshold does not establish an international consensus. Expert opinion that merely evaluates reports assembled by others is inadmissible where that assessment is the court’s task. The applications to amend the extradition grounds and obtain such expert evidence were therefore refused.

Three applicants sought permission-stage relief in extradition proceedings concerning warrants issued by the Polish Judicial Authority. They sought to amend their grounds to raise Article 3 ECHR, relying on a German regional court decision and later Polish prison-inspection material. They also sought prior authority to instruct a prisons expert.

Chromczuk and Szulejewski additionally challenged aspects of dual criminality, trial in absence, fugitivity, oppression and family life. Kowalski’s non-Article 3 issues were reserved for a later hearing. The central question was whether the new material made it arguable that extradition to Poland would expose the applicants to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

Disposition. The Article 3 arguments were dismissed in respect of all three applicants. The applications for prior authority were dismissed. Chromczuk’s and Szulejewski’s remaining arguments were dismissed; Kowalski’s non-Article 3 arguments remained to be determined.

1. The court adopted the approach explained in Litvinchuk and ors v Regional Court, Zamosc, Poland and ors [2021] EWHC 2735 (Admin). Where the relevant Article 3 material was before the court, the question was whether the applicants had shown exposure to a real risk of prohibited treatment sufficient to require further information or assurances. The strong presumption that Poland would comply with Article 3 could be displaced only by exceptional, clear, cogent and compelling evidence which was objective, reliable, specific and properly updated.
2. The German decision applied a different test, based on suspicion of systemic deficiencies rather than the English real-risk threshold. It was not binding, did not establish an international consensus, and its photographic and report material was narrower on examination than it first appeared. The KMPT was a national preventative mechanism, not an equivalent of the CPT, and its reports lacked sufficient international status to displace the presumption.
3. The court considered the evidence cumulatively, as required by Muršić v Croatia (2017) 65 EHRR 1. Some complaints and photographs showed shocking and potentially degrading treatment, but they remained individual incidents rather than established systemic conditions. Investigations, disciplinary proceedings, public reporting and recommendations for improved safeguards were relevant countervailing features. The material did not reach the Aranyosi (C-404/15 PPU) [2016] QB 921 threshold, nor did it make an arguable case under Krampa v Regional Court in Gdansk (Poland) [2023] EWHC 1587 (Admin). The fresh-evidence test in Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin) was also not met.
4. A proposed expert who had last visited a Polish prison in 2017 could not provide current first-hand evidence. Evaluating reports and materials assembled by others was the court’s task. The evidence was therefore inadmissible under the reasoning in Braziks v Latvia [2014] EWHC 1021 (Admin), as applied in Ize-Iyamu v USA [2025] EWHC 722 (Admin).
5. For Chromczuk, the conduct described in the warrant was sufficient for dual criminality, and the warrant gave clear information about his appointed lawyer. The trial-in-absence and Article 8 challenges disclosed no arguable error. For Szulejewski, fugitivity was not a balancing exercise: deliberate failure to return to serve the sentence could properly be found despite his having lived openly in the United Kingdom. The findings on fugitivity, oppression, delay and family impact disclosed no arguable error.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The court heard permission-stage applications and applications to amend the grounds to raise Article 3 ECHR. The Article 3 arguments, prior-authority applications and Chromczuk’s and Szulejewski’s remaining grounds were dismissed in [2026] EWHC 2276 (Admin) . Kowalski’s non-Article 3 arguments were reserved.
2. District Judges: The underlying extradition proceedings included findings on dual criminality, trial in absence, fugitivity, oppression and family life. No citation for those decisions was stated in the judgment.