Minister for Justice & Anor v Mihalcea (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, Minister for Justice and Equality, applied for the surrender of the Respondent to Romania under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated 2 December 2013. The EAW was issued by a Judge of the Oneşti Court of Law to enforce a three-year imprisonment sentence. The Respondent's appeal against the sentence was unsuccessful as of 17 October 2013. The Respondent was arrested in December 2021 pursuant to a Schengen Information System alert and brought before the High Court. The Court confirmed the identity of the Respondent and found no statutory impediments to surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The Court reviewed the chronology of relevant convictions and appeals, noting that the Respondent was represented by legal counsel throughout and that his rights of defence were respected. The Respondent objected to surrender on multiple grounds, primarily concerning alleged breaches of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Irish Constitution, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly focusing on prison conditions and family rights.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether surrender of the Respondent to Romania is prohibited under Section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 due to prison conditions amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 4 of the EU Charter.
2. Whether surrender would constitute a disproportionate interference with the Respondent's rights under Article 8 of the ECHR and corresponding constitutional provisions.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent objected to surrender on grounds that it would breach his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, the Irish Constitution, and the EU Charter, including potential disproportionate interference with his and his family’s rights.
• He argued that surrender would expose him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment due to poor prison conditions in Romania, including overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, and violence, thus breaching Article 2 and 3 of the ECHR and related constitutional rights.
• The Respondent relied on extensive Country-of-Origin Material, including reports by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), Council of Europe documents, and numerous European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cases indicating systemic deficiencies in Romanian prisons.
• He highlighted ambiguities and concerns regarding the minimum personal space guarantee of 3 square metres in detention, particularly in the event of transfer between prisons.
• The Respondent emphasized his established family and business ties in the jurisdiction as part of his Article 8 objection.

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant submitted that the Respondent’s surrender is lawful and that no statutory bars under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 apply.
• The Applicant relied on specific assurances from the Romanian National Administration of Penitentiaries regarding the conditions in which the Respondent would be detained, including provision of adequate sanitary facilities, food, medical care, access to fresh air and daylight, out-of-cell time, and a minimum of 3 square metres of personal space.
• They emphasized ongoing reforms in the Romanian prison system aimed at reducing overcrowding and improving detention conditions, supported by action plans and monitored by international bodies.
• The Applicant argued that the Respondent had not rebutted the statutory presumption that the issuing state respects fundamental rights and that the assurances provided were endorsed by the issuing judicial authority.
• The Applicant contended that the Respondent’s Article 8 objection did not meet the high threshold of exceptionality required to prevent surrender.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed review of the evidence and legal principles relevant to the Respondent’s objections. It applied the two-step test from ML, first acknowledging systemic deficiencies in Romanian prisons, as demonstrated by authoritative reports including the 2019 CPT report and relevant ECtHR judgments. However, the Court emphasized that systemic issues alone do not prohibit surrender; the key question is whether there is a specific and real risk to the individual concerned.

The Court carefully examined the assurances provided by the Romanian National Administration of Penitentiaries, which were endorsed by the issuing judicial authority. These assurances included guarantees of minimum personal space of 3 square metres, adequate sanitary and medical facilities, access to fresh air and out-of-cell activities, and protective measures against threats to personal safety.

The Court noted the ongoing reforms in the Romanian prison system aimed at reducing overcrowding and improving conditions, supported by governmental action plans and international oversight. It acknowledged that while overcrowding remains an issue, it is prison- and cell-specific, and the Respondent would be detained in regimes with less overcrowding after an initial quarantine period.

In relation to the Respondent’s Article 8 claim, the Court applied the stringent test from Vestartas and D.E., requiring truly exceptional circumstances to prevent surrender. The Court found that the Respondent’s personal and family circumstances did not meet this high threshold, and the delay and other factors did not amount to exceptional circumstances.

Overall, the Court found no substantial grounds to believe that the Respondent faces a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if surrendered, nor that surrender would be incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR or constitutional provisions.

Holding and Implications

ORDERED that the Respondent be surrendered to Romania pursuant to Section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

The Court’s decision results in the Respondent’s surrender to the issuing Member State for enforcement of the sentence. The ruling does not set new precedent but confirms the application of established legal standards regarding prison conditions and Article 8 objections in the context of European Arrest Warrants. The decision underscores the importance of specific, endorsed assurances from issuing authorities and the high evidential burden on respondents opposing surrender on human rights grounds.