Minister for Justice & Equality v Gheorghe

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Binchy
Judgment Date30 November 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] IEHC 618
Docket Number[2019 No. 326 EXT]
CourtHigh Court
Date30 November 2020
BETWEEN
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE & EQUALITY
APPLICANT
AND
MIRCEA-IONEL GHEORGHE
RESPONDENT

[2020] IEHC 618

Binchy

[2019 No. 326 EXT]

THE HIGH COURT

European arrest warrant – Surrender – Article 3 of the ECHR – Applicant seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent to Romania pursuant to a European arrest warrant – Whether the surrender of the respondent would give rise to a violation of his rights guaranteed under Article 3 of the ECHR

Facts: The applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, applied to the High Court seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent, Mr Gheorghe, to Romania pursuant to a European arrest warrant dated 15th February 2018 (the EAW). The EAW was issued by the First District Court in Bucharest, as issuing judicial authority (IJA). Points of objection were delivered by the respondent on 11th March 2020 as follows: “1. The respondent does not consent to surrender to the issuing state. 2. The respondent requires proof, from the applicant, of the European arrest warrant herein and all facts or matters rendering his surrender lawful. 3. The request for the respondent’s surrender is prohibited by the provisions of section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant 2003 [sic] in that it would violate the enjoyment of his fundamental rights to his family guaranteed by Article 41 of Bunreacht na hÉireann and/or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 4. The respondent objects to his surrender and disputes the content of the European arrest warrant herein in that he was informed by police in the issuing state that matters would not proceed to criminal prosecution, and in any event, he was not made aware either of such proceedings or the subsequent conviction, despite having given a statement and provided police with an address and contact details. 5. The said warrant does not comply with the provisions of section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (as amended). 6. The surrender of the respondent, in all the circumstances, would be disproportionate, having regard to the nature of the offence referred to in paragraph E.2 of the said warrant, the circumstances of the respondent’s departure from the issuing state, and the length of time that has passed since the events described in the said warrant. 7. Without prejudice to the foregoing Points of Objection, the respondent reserves his right, in the context of a decision from this honourable court to surrender him to the issuing state under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, to apply for an order under section 18 of the said Act of 2003, for a postponement of his surrender to the issuing state on such terms as this honourable court shall deem just and mete. 8. The respondent reserves his position in terms of the right to furnish further points of objection as may be permitted by this honourable Court.”

Held by Binchy J that there were substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk that the respondent would be detained in an area with a personal space of 2 m², for a substantial period of time, violating his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Binchy J held that it was apparent from his conclusions in Minister for Justice and Equality v Marian Dicu [2020] IEHC 607, that the general conditions in Rahova and Jilava, where the respondent would be detained (be it in just one or both of those institutions) were such as to have given rise to several adverse decisions of the ECtHR in recent years to the effect that they contravene rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention. It was Binchy J’s belief that the conditions that gave rise to those adverse decisions of the ECtHR were unlikely to have been addressed and eliminated. Binchy J noted that the IJA had been given three opportunities to identify remedial measures taken, two in Dicu and one in this case, and had not identified any. In Binchy J’s opinion, when all of these matters were taken into account, there were substantial grounds for believing that the surrender of the respondent would give rise to a violation of his rights guaranteed under Article 3 of the Convention.

Binchy J held that surrender was prohibited by s. 37(1)(a)(i) of the 2003 Act because such surrender would be incompatible with the State’s obligations under the Convention.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Binchy delivered on the 30th day of November, 2020
1

By this application the applicant seeks an order for the surrender of the respondent to Romania pursuant to a European arrest warrant dated 15th February 2018 (“the EAW”). The EAW was issued by the First District Court in Bucharest, as issuing judicial authority (“IJA”).

2

On 8th October 2019 the High Court declined to endorse the EAW because it sets out details of just one offence of theft for which the surrender of the respondent is sought, but it is clear that the sentence to be served is a cumulative sentence, which includes a second offence of robbery in respect of which there are no details in the EAW. The High Court requested a new European arrest warrant to be sent with complete details of both offences for which the respondent is sought. By letter of 14th October 2019 the IJA provided supplemental information relating both to the offence of theft and the offence of robbery.

3

The EAW was thereafter endorsed by the High Court on 11th November 2019. The respondent was arrested and brought before the Court on 27th January 2020. The application was opened and substantially heard by the Court on 12th March 2020, and was then adjourned from time to time, following upon a direction by this Court pursuant to s. 20 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (as amended) (hereinafter “the Act of 2003”). The request for further information concerned the prison conditions in which the respondent is likely to be detained if surrendered. I address this issue in detail later in this judgment.

4

At the opening of the application, I was satisfied that the person before the Court is the person in respect of whom the EAW is issued. I was further satisfied that none of the matters referred to in ss. 21 A, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act of 2003 arise, and that the surrender of the respondent is not prohibited for any of the reasons set forth in any of those sections.

5

At para. B of the EAW, it is stated that the decision on which it is based is criminal judgment handed down by the First District Court in Bucharest on 21st December 2017, made “final by lack of appeal” on 16th January 2018.

6

At para. C it is stated that the EAW relates firstly to one offence of theft under Article 228 (1) of the Romanian Criminal Code “with the application of Article 5 of the Criminal Code”, and was sentenced in respect of that offence by the First District Court in Bucharest on 21st December 2017 (the “theft offence”). Secondly, as became apparent from the reply to the request for further information referred to in para. 2 above, the EAW relates also to an offence of aggravated robbery under Articles 233 and 234 (1)(d) of the Romanian Criminal Code, for which the respondent was sentenced by the Fourth District Court in Bucharest on 18th June 2015, which sentence was made final on 15th July 2015 (the “robbery offence”). The applicable provisions of the Romanian Criminal Code are set out in full.

7

Further on in para. C of the EAW, information regarding the sentence imposed is given. It is stated that the sentences for the offences of theft and robbery were merged, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment of three years and three months, with a deduction of 24 hours for a period of detention on 20th May 2014. It is stated that the remaining sentence to be served is three years, two months and twenty nine days. Accordingly, minimum gravity is established in relation to the offences for the purposes of s. 38 of the Act of 2003.

8

At para. D of the EAW in relation to the theft offence, it is stated that the respondent was not present in person at the trial resulting in the decision. At para. D 3.1a the IJA states that the respondent did not appear at any hearings during the trial phase and was not informed of the accusation and his procedural rights. It is stated that attempts were made to summons the respondent, with checks carried out to find the respondent's address, without success. At para. D 3.4 it is stated that the respondent was not personally served with the decision but will, on his surrender, be entitled to request a retrial or appeal in respect of the offences and, on his surrender, will be informed of this right to request a retrial or appeal within one month.

9

At para. D regarding the robbery offence it is also stated that the respondent was not present at the trial resulting in the decision. At para. D 3.1a it is explained that attempts were made to summons the respondent, receiving responses from family members that the respondent no longer resides at his home address and had travelled to this jurisdiction. At para. D 3.4 it is stated that the respondent was not personally served with the decision but will, within one month of his surrender, be informed of his right to request a re-trial or appeal.

10

At para. E of the EAW, it is stated that the warrant relates to two offences. The following particulars are provided in relation to the theft offence:

“On 29/11/2013, around 10.30am, the defendant Gheorghe Mircea-Ionel stole a mobile phone, make Samsung Galaxy Note 3, …, from the Flanco store, located in Promenada Mall in Calea Floreasca, nr. 246B, Sector 1, Bucharest, while the phone was exposed for sale on a shelf, and replaced it with a broken phone Samsung Galaxy Note 3….”

Regarding the robbery offence the IJA sets out that:

“On May 20, 2014, around 02.30 am, while he was on Soseaua Oltenitei no. 140 in Bucharest, District 4, the defendant Gheorghe Mircea Ionel stole from the store owned by SC Ravi Central Store SRL...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Minister for Justice and Another v Mihalcea
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 6 d1 Março d1 2023
    ...• Minister v. Pal [2020] IEHC 143 – surrender ordered. • Minister v. Dicu [2020] IEHC 607 – surrender refused. • Minister v. Gheorghe [2020] IEHC 618 – surrender refused. • Minister v. Angel [2020] IEHC 699 – surrender refused. • Minister v. Iancu [2020] IEHC 136 – surrender ordered, notwit......
  • The Minister for Justice and Equality v Vlad Ionut Raduta
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 d3 Maio d3 2021
    ...counsel for the Minister relied on the decision of this Court (Paul Burns J.) in The Minister for Justice and Equality v Pitulan Angel [2020] IEHC 618, which summarises the principles applicable to the issue of prison conditions. Counsel submitted that the assurances received from the Roman......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT