Vasile Muntean and Tribunalul Arad Romania and Alexandru - Rares Zaharia and Brasov District Court Romania
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Treacy LJ |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NIQB 7 |
| Date | 28 January 2022 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NIQB 7
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: TRE11679
Delivered: 28/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
____________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
____________
BEFORE A DIVISIONAL COURT
____________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER
THE EXTRADITION ACT 2003
____________
Between:
VASILE MUNTEAN
(Respondent/Requested Person)
and
TRIBUNALUL ARAD ROMANIA
(Appellant/Requesting State)
and
ALEXANDRU-RARES ZAHARIA
(Appellant/Requested Person)
and
BRASOV DISTRICT COURT ROMANIA
(Respondent/Requesting State)
_____________
Before: Stephens LJ, Treacy LJ and Sir Richard McLaughlin
_____________
TREACY LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] Mr Muntean and Mr Zaharia are Romanian nationals subject to European
Arrest Warrants (“EAWs”) issued by Romania, the Requesting State (“RS”).
[2] The EAW relating to Mr Muntean (Requested Person, “RP”) is a conviction
warrant, the RP having been convicted of the offence of people trafficking. The
offences occurred between around 2003 to 2009. The RP was convicted on
2
18 December 2009 and the related appeals against conviction, heard on 2 November
2010 and 9 June 2011 were dismissed.
[3] The EAW relating to Mr Zaharia (Requested Person, “RP”) is a conviction
warrant, the RP having been convicted of an offence which would be categorised in
this jurisdiction as aggravated burglary and theft. The offence occurred on
28 September 2016. The RP was convicted in absentia on 31 May 2018 and the
conviction was finalised on 31 July 2018 by lack of appeal.
[4] The central issue raised in respect of both of these appeals is whether the
assurances provided by the Romanian authorities as to the conditions in which the
Requested Persons will be held if extradited are of sufficient quality and reliability to
dispel the known risk of violations of article 3 ECHR arising principally from the
prison conditions in that country.
Agreed Issues for determination
[5] The following is the agreed list of issues to be determined relating to
Mr Muntean:
(a) Whether there is evidence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in
the requesting state’s (RS) prisons.
(b) Are the assurances provided by the RS (i) sufficient and (ii) specific so there
can be no doubt that the assurances in this case demonstrate that there are no
substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of the requested person’s
(RP) article 3 rights being breached.
(c) Are the assurances of sufficient strength and scope so that there can be no
doubt that the assurances in this case demonstrate that there are no
substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of the RP’s article 3 rights
being breached.
(d) Are there substantial grounds for showing that, in light of the COVID-19
pandemic, RP could suffer a breach of his article 3 rights if extradited. And if
so, are the assurances provided by the RS in respect of the COVID-19
pandemic, sufficient (objective, reliable, specific with properly updated
information) to satisfy the court that there are no issues arising which could
give rise to an article 3 complaint.
(e) Is there cogent evidence to refute the presumption that an assurance given by
a responsible minister or responsible senior official of a Council of Europe or
EU state will be complied with.
(f) Is there an absence of an effective remedy in breach of article 13 ECHR.
To continue reading
Request your trial