Robert Paduche v Darabani Court of Law (Romania)

Hearing date: 18 th November 2025

Approved Judgment

Mr Paduche appeals against the order of a District Judge that he be extradited to Romania to serve a sentence of imprisonment. Mr Paduche's case turns on the validity of the European Arrest Warrant (‘AW’) which brought him before the District Judge. This is not the first time that this Court has heard essentially the same arguments. This case decides nothing new.

The first question in this case is this: where it appears from the terms of a warrant, read as a whole, that the requesting authority intends that the requested person would serve a longer sentence than the sentence for the particularised offences for which extradition was sought, is the warrant valid?

In 2016, the Divisional Court answered that question in the negative – ‘no’, such a warrant would not be valid: Edutanu v Iasi Court of Law Romania and three others (Barbu; Smadeci; Pascariu) [2016] 1 WLR 2933. This Court has to apply the principles from Edutanu, as developed in the case law since 2016, to the specific facts of Mr Paduche's case, particularly as to the role of further information which supplements the AW. The second question in this case is whether the further information should be taken into account, or not?

There is a third question, which is whether the District Judge erred in his assessment of and conclusion on Mr Paduche's rights under Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Facts and Background

The facts may be introduced via the terms of the AW which brought the Appellant before the District Judge.

The AW was issued by a competent judicial authority for the requested person “to be arrested and surrendered … for the purposes of serving a custodial sentence.” The emphasis in the original is to contrast with circumstances where a person is requested to respond to an accusation. The custodial sentence on which the warrant is based is the judgment of the Darabani Court of Law dated 6 December 2021, made final on 24 April 2023 by the Appeal Court of Suceava (box, or section, ‘b’) and a sentence of 3 years' and 2 months' imprisonment with the period remaining to be served being 2 years 11 months and 19 days (box ‘c’).

Box ‘d’ (whether person appeared at trial resulting in decision) states that the requested person was present at the trial resulting in the decision. Next is Section ‘e’, which reads:

“e) the offence:

This warrant relates to 1 (one) offence.

Description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence(s) by the requested person:

The document instituting the proceedings mentions the following:

On 17.07.2018, around 21:50, the defendant took over from Moldovan citizens, not identified so far, the amount of 10,000 packs of cigarettes from the Republic of Moldova, Rhythm Brand, which he later transport by Volvo car, the registration number TX9624AK, and as a result of this offence, he caused to the state budget a damage to the amount of 141,112 lei.

The nature of the legal classification of the offence and the applicable statutory provision/code:

The offence described above constitutes the offence of holding outside the bonded warehouse, provided by art. 452 paragraph 1 letter h of Law no 227/2015, with the application of art 396 paragr. 10 of the Code of criminal procedure, art 75 paragraph 2 letter b of Criminal code, art 76 par 1. of Criminal code, art. 5 of Criminal code (as a result of the change in legal classification of the offence for which the trial was ordered and the conviction of the defendant for smuggling, provided by art. 270 par.3 of Law no 86/2006).”

From sections ‘b’ to ‘e’ of the AW, it is apparent that in July 2018 the Appellant smuggled some 10,000 packets of cigarettes from Moldova, to Romania as a result of which he was convicted of specified offences and given a custodial sentence. The specified offence changed from smuggling to the offence of holding outside the bonded warehouse, as was made final on 24 ^th April 2023 by the Appeal Court of Suceava.

The custodial sentence remaining to be served is 2 years 11 months and 19 days.

It is plain from the terms of the AW that it relates to one offence because:

(i) It discusses only one set of particulars of an offence;

(ii) It gives only one legal classification of the offence, albeit that it explains that the classification changed from smuggling to holding outside the bonded warehouse;

(iii) It expressly states and emphasises (in bold) that it relates to 1 (one) offence;

(iv) No other type of offending is mentioned, still less particularised.

However, the background facts and the history of the proceedings go further than those which are disclosed on AW. The Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’) sought further information. By letter dated 13 ^th February 2024, the Darabani Court of Law responded to the questions put by the CPS. Ultimately there were three sets of further information. The material points were helpfully summarised by District Judge (Magistrates' Court) Leake (Appropriate Judge) in his reserved judgment dated 8 ^th October 2024. So far as the Edutanu point is concerned, he set out the relevant parts of the further information:

— By criminal sentence no 838 of 21 June 2019 ruled by the Darabani Court of Law, final following the decision of the Suceava Court of Appeal, the RP was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for committing the offence of putting in circulation of counterfeit foreign currency in continuous form, contrary to Articles 313, 310, and 316 of the Romanian criminal code. The court ordered that this sentence be suspended for a term of 3 years. The court ordered that the requested person attend a social reintegration program and perform 60 days of unpaid work. The requested did not comply with these conditions.

— The judgment concerning the sentence of the Botosani Court of Law dated 21 June 2019 (sentence of 3 years imprisonment suspended for 3 years in respect of the counterfeit currency offence) sets out the conditions upon which the sentence was suspended.

— The judgment concerning the sentence of the Darabani Court dated 6 December 2021 (total of 3 years 6 months' imprisonment) sets out that the “holding outside the bonded warehouse” offence was initially charged as an offence of smuggling. The specific sentence that the requested person received for the smuggling offence was 1 year 6 months' imprisonment, which was merged with the 3-year sentence for the counterfeit currency offence, to create an aggregate sentence of 3 years 6 months' imprisonment.

— The judgment concerning the sentence of the Suceava Court of Appeal dated 24 April 2023 amended the requested person's sentence. The conviction for smuggling was replaced with a conviction for “holding outside the bonded warehouse” and a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment was imposed. The judgment confirms that this sentence was merged with the 3-year sentence to create a sentence of 3 years 2 months' imprisonment.

— He was initially convicted for the counterfeit offence and the sentence of 3 years 2 months' imprisonment relates both to the counterfeit offence and the offence of “holding outside the bonded warehouse”.

— The counterfeit currency offence was committed on 15 January 2018 in Botosani. The requested person bought 3 mobile phones from an individual, and offered in exchange a total of EUR 1750 in bank notes that he knew were counterfeit. This conduct meets the elements of the offence of “releasing into free circulation of counterfeit currency”, contrary to Articles 313, 310, and 316 of the Criminal Code.

— The requested person was present during the trial for the counterfeit currency offence. He was represented by his lawyer Simion Marian. In the appeal proceedings, he was absent but represented by the same lawyer.

The further information introduces a second offence of a different type, committed at a different time and place, namely the purchase of a mobile telephone using counterfeit currency. It was a result of activation of the sentence for the counterfeit currency offence and its aggregation with the sentence for ‘smuggling’ that the sentence of 3 years and 2 months in custody was arrived at.

The Judgment Below

The District Judge identified the issues in the case as whether:

(i) the warrant contains sufficient particulars of the conviction and sentence to be a valid Part 2 warrant (s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003 (‘the 2003 Act’)

(ii) extradition of the requested person would be compatible with his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR (s.21 of the 2003 Act).

The District Judge was referring to the starting point in this case and in the leading cases which is Section 2 of the 2003 Act and the particulars of information which it requires, namely (so far as it is relevant):

(2) A Part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant which is issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory and which contains—

(a) the statement referred to in subsection (3) and the information referred to in subsection (4), or

(b) the statement referred to in subsection (5) and the information referred to in subsection (6).

(3) The statement is one that—

(a) the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued is accused in the category 1 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the warrant, and

(b) the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to...