Leonida Vasile vs Brad City Court, Romania

This case concerned an appeal against an extradition order to Romania, focusing on whether the extradition would breach the Appellant's Article 8 ECHR rights.

TLDR:

• Leonida Vasile appealed against an extradition order to Romania.
• The appeal was based on Article 8 ECHR rights, arguing that extradition would harm his family life.
• The High Court found the public interest in extradition outweighed the Article 8 considerations.

The Appellant, Leonida Vasile, faced an extradition order to Romania issued by District Judge Greenfield on 27 July 2023. The extradition was based on an accusation warrant for two alleged distraction burglaries committed in May and September 2022. Vasile argued that extradition would violate his and his family's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Vasile's counsel, Matei Clej, presented the appeal on 16 May 2024, emphasizing the emotional and financial support Vasile provided to his wife and four children in the UK. The family had settled status, and Vasile had no UK convictions. However, the district judge had previously balanced these factors against the public interest in upholding extradition treaties and preventing the UK from becoming a haven for criminals.

District Judge Greenfield had conducted a Celinski balancing exercise, weighing the severity of the alleged offences, the vulnerability of the victim, and the substantial amounts of money involved against Vasile's family ties and lack of recent criminal activity in the UK. The judge concluded that the public interest in extradition outweighed the Article 8 rights of Vasile and his family.

In his decision, Mr Justice Julian Knowles noted that the district judge had correctly directed himself on the relevant legal principles and had taken into account all pertinent factors. The judge found no evidence of severe hardship that would outweigh the public interest in extradition. The offences were serious, involving deliberate targeting of a vulnerable victim and significant financial loss.

The High Court upheld the district judge's decision, emphasizing that extradition often has a familial impact, but something more than the usual hardship was required to bar extradition on Article 8 grounds. The judge concluded that the district judge's decision was not arguably wrong and refused permission to appeal.

Legal representatives: Matei Clej (instructed by AM International Solicitors) for the Appellant. The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.

Judicial Panel: Mr Justice Julian Knowles

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1262 (Admin)