The Minister for Justice and Equality v Raduta (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, sought an order for the surrender of the Respondent to Romania pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated 30 July 2020, issued by a Delegated Judge of the Romanian Court. The surrender was sought to enforce a custodial sentence of three years and three months relating to six offences including burglary, criminal damage, assault causing harm, public order, and various road traffic offences. The Respondent was not present at trial but was to be served with the decision after surrender and informed of the right to a retrial or appeal de novo with the right to be present. The High Court endorsed the warrant for execution, and the Respondent was arrested and brought before the Court on 22 January 2021. The Court was satisfied as to the identity of the Respondent and that no statutory bars to surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 arose. The Respondent’s sole objection to surrender concerned alleged prison conditions in Romania, raising issues under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) relating to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the surrender of the Respondent pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant would be prohibited under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 due to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR arising from the conditions of detention in Romania.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent objected to surrender on the basis that it would be incompatible with the State’s obligations under the ECHR and/or the Constitution, specifically citing Article 3 protections against inhuman or degrading treatment due to prison conditions in Romania.
• The Respondent expressed fears about prison conditions, particularly concerning personal space and overcrowding in Romanian prisons, referencing a report from a Romanian criminal defence lawyer describing the prison regimes and specific concerns about Bacau prison facilities.
• Reliance was placed on European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law illustrating inadequate personal space in Romanian prisons (e.g., Petrea v Romania, Todireasa v Romania, Rezmives and others v Romania, Turlea v Romania), casting doubt on the reliability of assurances given by Romanian authorities.
• It was submitted that more precise and individualized assurances were required before surrender should be ordered.

Applicant's Arguments

• Counsel for the Applicant relied on assurances received from Romanian authorities detailing the likely detention conditions, including initial quarantine in Bucharest Rahova Prison with a minimum of 3 sq. m. personal space, followed by detention in closed regime prisons (likely Iasi Prison), with potential progression to semi-open and open regimes.
• Assurances included commitments to maintain minimum individual space of 3 sq. m. throughout the custodial sentence and ongoing improvements in prison infrastructure.
• Reference was made to the principle of mutual trust between Member States under the EAW framework and prior High Court decisions affirming that such assurances and conditions did not constitute a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.
• Counsel emphasized that the ECtHR cases cited by the Respondent predated the assurances and improvements now in place and that the assurances were sufficiently specific and reliable for the purposes of surrender.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully evaluated the evidence and submissions, focusing on whether there was a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if the Respondent were surrendered. The Court accepted the assurances provided by the Romanian National Administration of Prisons concerning the conditions and regimes applicable to the Respondent, including minimum personal space guarantees and the progressive nature of the detention regime. It noted the principle of mutual trust underpinning the EAW framework and that these assurances were transmitted through the issuing judicial authority, thus carrying significant weight.

The Court considered the Respondent’s reliance on previous ECtHR judgments and reports indicating poor prison conditions but found that these predated the assurances and ongoing improvements described in the evidence before the Court. The Court also observed that the statutory presumption under section 4A of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 favors compliance by Member States with fundamental rights obligations unless rebutted by cogent evidence.

On balance, the Court concluded that the Respondent had not demonstrated substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of ill-treatment in Romanian detention conditions. The Court was satisfied that surrender would not be incompatible with the State’s obligations under the ECHR or the Constitution.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was to order the surrender of the Respondent to Romania pursuant to section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

Holding: The Respondent’s objection to surrender based on alleged prison conditions and Article 3 ECHR was dismissed, and the surrender order was granted.

Implications: The decision directly results in the Respondent’s surrender to serve the custodial sentence in Romania. The ruling reinforces the presumption of mutual trust between Member States under the EAW framework and confirms that assurances from the issuing state, when sufficiently specific and reliable, can dispel concerns about prison conditions. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.