The High Court has ordered Daniel Danila’s surrender to Romania under a European Arrest Warrant, dismissing his objection that the warrant did not adequately protect his right to challenge a conviction entered in his absence.
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2022, Ms Justice Eileen Creedon found that the warrant provided an unambiguous right to seek a retrial or appeal after surrender. The court said Mr Danila would be able to attend, have evidence including new evidence re-examined, and seek cancellation of the original decision. He would have 10 days to request a rehearing.
The Romanian warrant, issued on 11 November 2020, seeks enforcement of a one-year-and-four-month prison sentence. The sentence followed Mr Danila’s 2019 conviction by the Saveni Court of Law in Botosani County for driving without a licence and driving a non-registered vehicle. The offences occurred on 10 February 2017. The judgment records that the conviction became final on 23 December 2019, with the full sentence remaining to be served.
Mr Danila’s sole objection was under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, concerning trials in a person’s absence. In an affidavit, he said he had not known of the hearing, had not appointed a lawyer or waived his right to one, and first learned of the proceedings towards the end of 2019. He said relatives later engaged a lawyer to explore an appeal but were told nothing could be done.
The warrant stated that Mr Danila had been personally served with notice of the trial date and place and told a decision could be made if he did not attend. It also said an ex officio lawyer represented him during the trial. According to the warrant, a lawyer later appointed by Mr Danila sought a rehearing in January 2020, but that request was rejected.
Mr Danila argued that the warrant’s wording about a “rejudgment” and a new appeal left uncertainty over whether he had a right to a retrial or appeal. The court concluded that, read with the assurances in Part D of the warrant and the cited case law, the right and its terms were clear enough to satisfy section 45. It dismissed that objection and found surrender was not barred under the Act. The order was made under section 16 for surrender to Romania; the judgment did not determine the merits of the Romanian conviction.