EXTRADITION CASES

Chirila v Court of Appeal Iasi (Romania) [2025] EWHC 409 (Admin) – Our client was discharged after an appeal against an order for extradition to Romania was allowed on the grounds that extradition would be incompatible with our client’s rights under Article 5 of the Convention. As far as we are aware, this is a first clear discharge on Art 5 of the Convention and it confirms Article 5 to be a viable basis for challenge in conviction cases.

Romania v G 2024 Westminster Magistrates’ Court – our client was discharged after it was held that the Judicial Authority have not established reasonable cause for delaying our client’s extradition.

France v P 2024 Westminster Magistrates’ Court – our client was discharged on the grounds that his extradition would be incompatible with Art 8 ECHR.

Netherlands v D 2023  – our client was discharged in appeal pursuant to Section 42 of the Extradition Act 20023

Croatia v E 2023 Westminster Magistrates’ Court  – our client was discharged on Section 21A grounds.

Romania v Marian Gurau [2023] EWHC 439 (Admin) – where it was held that no jurisdiction exists on cross-appeals under the Extradition Act 2003. It was also held that it was for Parliament to decide to permit whether such an appeal was desirable.

Romania v S 2022 Westminster Magistrates’ Court – our client was discharged on Art 8 ECHR grounds. Expert evidence of a child psychologist was used in this matter.

Romania v V 2022 Westminster Magistrates’ Court – our client was discharged due to inadequate speciality protection in Romanian law.

Marosan v Court of Cluj-Napoca [2021] EWHC 3098 / [2021] WLR(D) 594 (19 November 2021), which held that Article 26 of the EAW Framework Decision (EAW FD) requires the issuing Member State to deduct, from a term of imprisonment , periods of ‘dual remand’ comprising contemporaneous (i) remand on an European arrest warrant (EAW) and (ii) remand in domestic criminal proceedings, where the latter is not then counted towards a custodial sentence.

Moldova v B 2021 Westminster Magistrates’ Court – our client was discharged on Article 3 grounds (prison conditions)

Romania v T 2020 Westminster Magistrates’ Court – Following representations, our client was discharged under Section 21(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 (extradition not compatible with Art 3 ECHR).

Italy v T 2020 – Westminster Magistrates’ Court – client discharged following the withdrawal of the EAW.

Romania v B 2020 – Westminster Magistrates’ Court – following application for consent by Romanian authorities, consent was refused pursuant to section 55(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.

Romania v V 2020 – Westminster Magistrates’ Court – District Judge found that Romania does not provide adequate speciality protection. Mr V was discharged from a European Arrest Warrant.

Romania v M 2019 – Westminster Magistrates’ Court – our client discharged following extradition request on Section 2 grounds.

Italy v F 2019 – Westminster Magistrates’ Court – following a request by the Italian authorities,
our client was discharged – Section 11(3) Extradition Act 2003.

Grecu & Bagarea [2017] EWHC 1427 (Admin) – Represented Mr Grecu in a landmark case on Romanian prison conditions.

Belgium v F 2017 – Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

Romania v R 2017 Westminster Magistrates’ Court – our client was discharged under Section 2 Extradition Act 2003.

Romania v Rusu – Westminster Magistrates’ Court 2016 – following evidence gathered by the defence, it was demonstrated that the Romanian authorities have breached the assurances given to the Courts.

Romania v P – Westminster Magistrates’ Court 2016 – our client was discharged on Art 3
(prison conditions).

Zagrean, Sunca and Chihaia v Romanian Judicial Authorities [2016] EWHC 2786 (Admin) – Represented two of the appellants in another important case on Romanian prison conditions.

Italy v Z 2015 – Westminster Magistrates’ Court.