Judgment: 2021-06-16 · Court archive

High Court orders surrender of Sorin Cosmin Drăghia to Romania over five-year drugs sentence

High Court · [2021] IEHC 414

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Sorin Cosmin Drăghia (Respondent)
  • Timiş County Court
  • Timişoara Court of Appeal
  • European Court of Human Rights
What

High Court orders surrender of Sorin Cosmin Drăghia to Romania over five-year drugs sentence

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Romania
  • Timiş County Court
  • Timişoara Court of Appeal
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Drăghia had been convicted by Timiş County Court in February 2020. His appeal was rejected by the Timişoara Court of Appeal in September 2020. Additional information supplied to the Irish court confirmed that he had originally been prosecuted for two offences: drug trafficking and establishing an organised criminal group. He was convicted of the drugs offence and acquitted of the organised crime charge.

The High Court has ordered Sorin Cosmin Drăghia to be surrendered to Romania to serve a five-year prison sentence for trafficking in dangerous and high-risk drugs.

Romanian authorities sought his surrender under a European arrest warrant issued by a judge of Timiş County Court in September 2020. The sentence is subject to deduction of the period from May 16 to May 23, 2018.

Drăghia had been convicted by Timiş County Court in February 2020. His appeal was rejected by the Timişoara Court of Appeal in September 2020. Additional information supplied to the Irish court confirmed that he had originally been prosecuted for two offences: drug trafficking and establishing an organised criminal group. He was convicted of the drugs offence and acquitted of the organised crime charge.

Drăghia opposed surrender on four grounds.

First, he argued that Romania’s five-year mandatory minimum sentence was disproportionate and incompatible with constitutional protections. Mr Justice Paul Burns rejected that argument, holding that Irish courts do not refuse surrender simply because another EU state applies sentencing rules different from those used in Ireland.

Second, Drăghia argued that the appeal proceedings took place without him. The court found that he had personally attended parts of the first-instance proceedings and had been represented there by his chosen lawyer. Although he did not attend the appeal, he had appointed another lawyer who represented him. The statutory safeguards for trials in absence were therefore satisfied.

The court also rejected an argument that the warrant was unclear about the number of offences. Romanian authorities had explained that conduct on two occasions formed part of the single drugs offence for which he was convicted.

Finally, the court held that Drăghia’s pending application to the European Court of Human Rights was not a legal ground to refuse or postpone surrender. The surrender order was therefore made.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review