Minister for Justice v Draghia (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

An application was made by the Applicant seeking an order for the surrender of the Respondent to Romania pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated 29th September 2020, issued by the Timiş County Court. The EAW requested surrender to enforce a five-year imprisonment sentence, with a specified period to be deducted. The High Court endorsed the EAW on 21st December 2020, and the Respondent was arrested and brought before the Court on 1st March 2021. The Court confirmed the identity of the Respondent and found no statutory bars to surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (as amended). The Respondent raised multiple objections to surrender during the hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether surrender of the Respondent pursuant to the EAW is precluded by the mandatory minimum sentence under Romanian law being disproportionate and unconstitutional under s. 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
2. Whether surrender is precluded under s. 45 of the Act due to the Respondent’s absence at the hearing and non-compliance with procedural requirements.
3. Whether the EAW suffers from an unacceptable lack of clarity regarding the number and nature of offences.
4. Whether surrender should be refused or adjourned due to the Respondent’s pending application before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) challenging his conviction and sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• Surrender is precluded by s. 37 of the Act of 2003 because the mandatory minimum five-year sentence under Romanian law is disproportionate and unconstitutional.
• Surrender is precluded by s. 45 of the Act as the Respondent was not personally present at the hearing and procedural safeguards were not met.
• The EAW lacks clarity as it purports to relate to a single offence but references multiple types of wrongdoing.
• Surrender should be refused or adjourned because the Respondent has lodged an application before the ECtHR alleging breaches of fair trial rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Applicant's Arguments

• The mandatory minimum sentence does not breach constitutional or human rights obligations and does not justify refusal of surrender.
• The Respondent was represented by counsel at all relevant stages, including appeal, satisfying s. 45 procedural requirements.
• The EAW relates to a single offence, supported by detailed legislative framework and additional information clarifying the charges and convictions.
• An application to the ECtHR is not a ground for refusal or adjournment under the Act of 2003; mutual trust between Member States presumes compliance with fundamental rights.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first confirmed the identity of the Respondent and found no statutory bars to surrender under the relevant sections of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The Court accepted that the sentence exceeded the minimum gravity threshold, and the offence fell within the Framework Decision's list of offences not requiring strict correspondence to domestic law.

Regarding the mandatory minimum sentence objection, the Court distinguished the Ellis precedent, noting that unlike the limited application in Ellis, Romanian law applies the mandatory minimum broadly. The Court emphasized that it is not required to conduct a general proportionality test where the sentence meets the Act's gravity requirements. It reaffirmed established jurisprudence that differences in legal systems and sentencing regimes do not automatically preclude surrender unless fundamental rights are egregiously violated, which was not demonstrated here.

On the procedural objection under s. 45, the Court found the Respondent was personally present at trial and represented by counsel at trial and appeal, satisfying procedural requirements. The Court dismissed the objection based on absence from the appeal hearing because the Respondent was represented by a mandated lawyer.

The Court addressed the alleged lack of clarity in the EAW by reference to additional information clarifying that the Respondent was prosecuted for two offences but convicted of one, which under Romanian law could be treated as a single offence. The Court was satisfied that the EAW met statutory clarity requirements.

Regarding the pending ECtHR application, the Court held that such an application is not a ground for refusal or adjournment under the Act of 2003. It emphasized the principle of mutual trust between Member States and noted the absence of cogent evidence that surrender would breach fundamental rights. The Court declined to adjourn or refuse surrender on this basis.

Holding and Implications

The Court ORDERED the surrender of the Respondent to Romania pursuant to s. 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

The decision directly effects the parties by authorizing the Respondent’s transfer to the issuing state to serve the sentence. No new legal precedent was established, as the Court applied established principles regarding mandatory minimum sentences, procedural compliance, and the non-preclusive effect of pending ECtHR applications on surrender decisions.