Order made on 31 May 2017
The Prosecution Service
The Danish Ministry of Justice's decision on extradition for enforcement Romania set aside for not meeting the conditions of the Extradition Act
In a case on the hearing of a request from the Romanian authorities for the extradition of T for enforcement in Romania on the basis of a European arrest warrant, the Supreme Court ruled on 24 February 2017 that a new opinion should be obtained from the Romanian authorities on the conditions under which T would be held in Romania. This new opinion had now been received.
The Romanian authorities stated that T would be guaranteed a personal space of at least 3 sq. m. in a multi-person cell when serving his prison sentence in a maximum-security prison. However, if the sentence was to be served in a medium-security prison, he would only be guaranteed a personal space of 2 sq. m. The Supreme Court considered that the information on the prison conditions under which T would be held if he was extradited to a maximum-security prison did not provide grounds for establishing that there was a real risk that he would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention of Article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention.
Based on the information provided by the Romanian authorities, the Supreme Court considered it highly probable that T would serve a part of his prison sentence in a medium-security prison, where he was only guaranteed a personal space of 2 sq. m. Against this background, the Supreme Court ruled that there was a real risk that he would serve some of his prison sentence imposed in Romania in conditions that would be in contravention of Article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention as interpreted and applied by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 20 October 2016. Extraditing T would thus be in contravention of Section 10h(2) of the Danish Extradition Act, and the Ministry of Justice's decision on his extradition for enforcement in Romania was set aside for not complying with this provision.
The High Court had reached a different conclusion.