Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration v Bolmadir

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Sean Gillane
• Judgment Date: 15 July 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 481
• Docket Number: Record No. 2025 259 EXT

Between

Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration

Applicant

and

Costica Bolmadir

Respondent

[2026] IEHC 481

Record No. 2025 259 EXT

THE HIGH COURT

European arrest warrant – Surrender – Correspondence – Applicant seeking the surrender of the respondent – Whether there was correspondence

Facts: The applicant, the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, applied to the High Court for the surrender of the respondent, Mr Bolmadir, to the Republic of Bulgaria (the issuing state), pursuant to s. 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, on foot of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Deputy District Prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office in Russe, Republic of Bulgaria on 21 May 2025. The respondent’s objections to surrender were advanced under five headings: abuse of process; prior determination; failure to comply with s. 11 of the 2003 Act; correspondence; and conditions of detention.

Held by Gillane J that there was nothing in what transpired that had the intention, or the effect, of undermining the enquiry that he must carry out under the 2003 Act. He noted that the refusal by the Romanian authorities of the surrender of the respondent on the warrant on 7 July 2025 postdated the issuance of the warrant by two months and, upon enquiry being made of the issuing judicial authority (the IJA) after the respondent had been arrested in October 2025, full details were provided. Gillane J could not see any basis for concluding that anything was hidden in the sense contended for. In circumstances where the fundamental basis for prior refusal had no application under the laws of the State, he found that it was entirely appropriate to consider the warrant before the Court and the request for surrender based thereon. It was also clear to him from the further information provided that the question of proportionality had been specifically addressed by the IJA, who confirmed that it was considered proportionate to maintain the request. He could not see any conflict whatsoever between s. 11, the objectives identified by Edwards J in Minister for Justice and Equality v Cahill [2012] IEHC 315 and the information provided in this application. Gillane J held that the respondent could not sensibly argue that he did not know precisely why his surrender was sought; there was no room for doubting that he was to be prosecuted for a single offence under the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bulgaria, as identified in considerable detail both in the warrant and the supplementary information. Regarding whether the particulars on the warrant would constitute an offence in the State, Gillane J concluded that it would; the relevant corresponding offence was an offence contrary to s. 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1996. He was satisfied that the further information provided by the IJA was information on which the Court could rely in applying the fact-specific and forward-looking approach mandated and that this was consistent with the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust. There is no indication in the material before him that the information provided in respect of the particular detention centre was incorrect or incapable of being relied upon. In light of the IJA’s response, he was not satisfied that a real or substantial risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been made out.

Gillane J rejected the points of objection raised on behalf of the respondent and made an order for his surrender to a person authorised to receive him in the issuing state.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT delivered by Mr. Justice Sean Gillane on 15 July 2026

Introduction

1 This is an application for the surrender of the respondent to the Republic of Bulgaria (“the issuing state”), pursuant to section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended (“the 2003 Act”), on foot of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Deputy District Prosecutor of the District Prosecutor's Office in Russe, Republic of Bulgaria on the 21 ^st of May 2025 (“the warrant”).

2 The warrant was issued by a competent judicial authority in the issuing state (“the IJA”).

3 The respondent was arrested on foot of an SIS alert on the 16 ^th of October 2025 and brought before this Court. The warrant was duly produced before this Court on the 22 ^nd of October 2025.

4 No issue has been raised by the respondent in relation to his identity, and I am satisfied that the respondent is the person identified in the warrant.

5 The warrant is a prosecution/accusation-type warrant and relates to a single offence. It is alleged that on the 30 ^th of October 2018, in the city of Russe, without the consent of the holders of exclusive rights to a variety of trade marks for class 03 of the International Classification of Goods and Services, the respondent used those trade marks in his commercial activity without a legal basis contrary to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bulgaria. I will return to the significance of the way in which the charge is framed below.

6 The respondent is a Romanian national and objects to his surrender. A notice of objection was filed on his behalf pursuant to Order 98, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, as amended.

Background

7 Part B of the warrant indicates that the decision on which the warrant is based is a decree to bring the respondent into custody and a decree for detention pursuant to Article 64(2) of Bulgaria Criminal Procedure Code in respect of the above-described offence. Part B goes on to list a range of trade marked products (well-known perfumes) in respect of which it is said that there has been a breach of the rights of parties who have registered those trade marks. The value given in respect of these products is BGN 143,139.

8 Part C of the warrant indicates that the maximum length of custodial sentence or detention order that may be imposed for the alleged offence is one of a penalty of “ deprivation of liberty” for a term of up to five years. It seems, therefore, that the requirements of minimum gravity are met.

9 Part E of the warrant is clear that the warrant relates to “ ONE OFFENCE” under Article 172b(1) in conjunction with Article 2(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bulgaria. A detailed description of the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed is set out over the course of five pages.

10 According to the warrant, the respondent travelled by car to the premises of a forwarding company named “ ‘Speedy’ AD” in the city of Russe and began unloading boxes that were intended to be sent abroad. During the course of unloading, officers from the border police checked the respondent and his car. The car contained fifteen boxes of perfume products.

11 Part E contains a list of all of the recovered products.

12 Following an expert examination, the listed products were found to be identical to goods for which a number of listed trade marks were registered. The products were found to bear signs that were identical or highly similar to registered trade marks protecting genuine perfume goods.

13 The expert also concluded that this similarity may lead to consumer confusion, including the possibility of associating the signs depicted with the registered trade marks listed in the warrant.

14 A forensic economic appraisal was also prepared and concluded that the total value of the items in question was BGN 143,139.

15 It is, therefore, alleged that the respondent infringed the rights of the relevant trade mark holders and that he was involved in the commercial handling and intended distribution of those goods.

16 Several requests for further information were made pursuant to section 20 of the 2003 Act on the 12 ^th of November 2025, the 17 ^th of December 2025 and the 5 ^th of February 2026 and supplemental submissions were filed by both parties arising out of the information received. I propose to refer to this information in more detail in the context of the arguments discussed below.

Discussion

17 The respondent's objections to surrender were advanced under five headings:

• • Abuse of process

• • Prior determination

• • Failure to comply with section 11 of the 2003 Act

• • Correspondence

• • Conditions of detention

18 It was confirmed during the course of the hearing that an objection in relation to a potential breach of the respondent's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”) was not being pursued.

Abuse of Process and Prior Determination

19 It seems to me to be appropriate to deal with the first two objections together.

20 The argument under this heading is advanced on the basis that the surrender of the respondent on the warrant was already refused by the Romanian authorities on the 7 ^th of July 2025.

21 The respondent swore an affidavit on the 8 ^th of December 2025 in which he averred that he was arrested in Romania on foot of a European Arrest Warrant dated the 21 ^st of May 2025. He said that on the 7 ^th of July 2025, the Galati Court of Appeal in Romania refused to make an order for his surrender to the issuing state.

22 The respondent averred that the European Arrest Warrant on which his surrender was refused by the Galati Court of Appeal is the same warrant currently before this Court. He exhibited the decision of the Galati Court of Appeal. It seems apparent from that decision that his surrender was refused on the optional ground for refusal provided for under Article 99(2) of Law No. 302 of 28 June 2004 on international judicial co-operation in criminal matters (republished), i.e., that criminal liability for the offence on which the warrant was based had become statute barred in Romania.

23 It is submitted that this fact was “ not made known to this Court” and counsel for the respondent further submitted that the IJA was in effect “ hiding it” as it only came to light on the basis of instructions given by...