Please call us on +49 (0) 211 1718380 or email us at duesseldorf@ra-anwalt.de to find out how we can help you.
Our firm maintains a 24 Hour Emergency Line +49(0)172-2112373 or +49(0)172-7056055
General Prosecutor's Office Frankfurt/M., Order of 06.05.2016 – 2 Ausl 162/14 - inadmissibility of extradition to Romania based on EAW issued by the Higher Regional Court in Gheorgheni / Romania
We were able to avert the extradition of our client to Romania based on a European arrest warrant. In its ruling dated 06.05.2016 – 2 Ausl 162/14 – the general public prosecutor in Frankfurt closed the proceedings concerning our client despite the European arrest warrant issued by the Higher Regional Court in Gheorgheni, Romania.
Romania has always been problematic in these situations. While some courts have refused extraditions to Romania solely on account of the poor conditions of detention, the Hamburg Higher Regional Court recently (decision of 3 January 2017 - Ausl 81/16) stated that in individual cases extradition can be allowed despite the conditions of detention in Romania.
However, according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, systemic and general deficiencies exist in Romania as regards to the conditions of detention. Partially, the German prosecution is trying to ensure the proper treatment of the accused after extradition to Romania with previously requested statements from the Romanian Ministry of Justice. Meanwhile, it has been claimed that the conditions have recently improved. Even so, this cannot alter the fact that this assessment of the detention facilities in Romania are still clearly exagerrated.
The existing conditions of detention have led to repeated convictions of Romania by the ECHR for violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, with the Court regularly referring to the inadequate size of the prison cells.
Particularly problematic are the conditions of detention in Romania for those who suffer from health problems. There is a consensus that, in the case of a life-threatening illness, extradition would be contrary to Article 2 (II, 1) of the Basic Law of Germany and is therefore inadmissible (OLG Hamm, Order of 19 January 2006 - (2) 4 Ausl A 34-05 (17, 18/06)). A life-threatening illness is to be assumed if the interruption of the medical control and treatment would justify a life-threatening condition.