The High Court has ordered the surrender of Vlad Ionut Raduta to Romania to serve a three-year-and-three-month prison sentence, after rejecting his objection that Romanian prison conditions could expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment.
In a judgment delivered on 5 May 2021, Mr Justice Tony Hunt found that the assurances provided by Romania’s National Administration of Prisons were sufficiently specific to address the risk raised under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The warrant sought surrender in connection with six offences, including burglary, criminal damage, assault causing harm, public order and road traffic offences. Mr Raduta had not been present at his trial. The judgment records that, after surrender, he would be served with the decision and informed of his right to a retrial or an appeal de novo at which he could be present.
His objection focused on overcrowding and personal space. His lawyer relied on a report from a Romanian criminal defence lawyer, which said he would likely be placed in a closed-security regime and could be sent to Bacau prison, near his Romanian domicile. The report raised concerns about conditions in parts of that prison. The defence also cited European Court of Human Rights judgments and Council of Europe material describing low personal-space allowances in Romanian prisons.
The court sought further information from the Romanian authorities. In a letter transmitted through the issuing judicial authority, prison officials said Mr Raduta would initially be held at Bucharest Rahova Prison for a 21-day quarantine, in a room providing at least three square metres of space. He would most likely then serve his sentence in a closed-security facility, probably Iasi Prison. After one-fifth of the sentence, his regime could be reviewed, with possible moves to semi-open and later open facilities. The authorities said the three-square-metre minimum would apply throughout the sentence, including the bed and furniture but excluding sanitary facilities, even if he were transferred to another prison unit.
Justice Hunt accepted those assurances, finding them specific to Mr Raduta and the likely places and conditions of detention. He concluded that the evidence did not establish substantial grounds for believing there was a real risk of treatment contrary to his rights, and that the statutory presumption of compliance with EU arrest-warrant obligations had not been rebutted.
The court dismissed the objection under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act and, having found no other bar to surrender, made an order under section 16(1) for Mr Raduta’s surrender to Romania. The judgment orders surrender; it does not record that the transfer had already taken place.