🇷🇴

Romania

Extradition Law & Case Law

1
As requested
state
17
As requesting
state
Connected jurisdictions
Case Law
EAW to Romania: six-month residual penalty threshold does not override social rehabilitation refusal ground
✕
Summary
The case concerns the execution in Italy of an executive European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the surrender of a person convicted of using a false instrument, the issuing State having consented to the sentence being served in Italy. The Court of Appeal had acknowledged the appellant's settled residence in Italy and the issuing State's consent to transfer of execution, yet refused recognition of the foreign judgment on the ground that, after dissolving the cumulative sentence, the penalty attributable to the surrendered offence (four months) fell below the six-month threshold set for recognition of foreign judgments. The Court of Cassation held that the appellate court had no power to unilaterally re-determine or increase the sentence set by the foreign court, and that the six-month residual-penalty threshold for recognition under Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA cannot be read so as to neutralise the optional refusal ground under Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA based on the social rehabilitation interests of a person settled in the executing State, where the issuing State has already consented to domestic execution. The contested judgment was therefore annulled and remanded for a fresh assessment of the refusal ground under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005, applying the principles set out.
11/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 21910/2016
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania set aside: detention conditions required assessment of defence sources
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the surrender of a Romanian national convicted, by a non-final judgment, of drug-related offences. The Court of Appeal of Naples ordered surrender, rejecting the defence objection based on the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Romanian detention. The requested person argued that the Court of Appeal had failed to properly assess several reliable sources, including statements from directors of Romanian penitentiary institutions, showing overcrowding and the lack of the minimum three square metres of personal space, excluding fixed furniture. The Italian Supreme Court held that the appellate court’s reasoning was merely apparent: it had relied on the general adequacy of the detention regime indicated by Romania, without analytically addressing the defence material that appeared, in abstract terms, capable of contradicting those assurances. The Court stressed that, where relevant defence sources have been duly submitted, the executing court must carry out a full assessment of all available information and, if uncertainty remains, seek supplementary information on the individual detention conditions. By contrast, the Court rejected the argument that surrender was barred because the Romanian conviction was not yet final, holding that the Framework Decision requires enforceability, not finality, of the conviction. The judgment was therefore annulled with remand for a new assessment of detention conditions.
11/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 21912/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
Reversal and remandEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: five-year residence requirement for execution in Italy was not established
✕
Summary
The case concerned an execution European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for the enforcement of a final two-year prison sentence for aggravated theft and driving without a licence. The requested person resisted surrender, arguing that the Italian Court of Appeal had failed to assess documents allegedly showing stable integration in Italy and that refusal of surrender was required under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005 in order to allow the sentence to be served in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court held that, after Legislative Decree No. 10/2021, an appeal against a surrender decision may not be brought on grounds of defective reasoning, including alleged omission or misreading of evidence. In any event, the Court found that the requested person had not even alleged the essential statutory requirement of lawful and effective residence or stay in Italy for at least five years, which applies under the amended Article 18-bis. A post-arrest offer of employment was insufficient to prove such integration and, if anything, confirmed the weakness of the claim. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible and surrender remained ordered.
04/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 20903/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW to Romania, detention conditions and assessment of assurances
✕
Summary
After obtaining information or assurances concerning detention conditions, the Court cannot simply reproduce the indications provided by the issuing authority without carrying out an actual assessment of the defence submissions challenging the reliability or adequacy of the information transmitted by the requesting State.
21/05/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 18523/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
Reversal and remandEAW
EAW, risk of inhuman treatment and allegation of reliable and specific evidence on detention conditions
✕
Summary
EAW and risk of inhuman treatment: if the lawyer of the sought person files reliable and specific sources concerning shortcomings in the current prison system of the requesting State (Romania), it becomes necessary to assess the individualised detention conditions and such an assessment cannot be excluded ab initio. Indeed, notwithstanding a trend of progressive improvement, international authorities continue to report widespread deficiencies in the Romanian penitentiary system.
30/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 16092/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
Reversal and remandEAW
EAW, mutual trust and detention conditions: requests for information to an EU Member State are not mandatory, but must be supported by specific elements or matters of common knowledge
✕
Summary
In light of the principle of mutual trust among the Member States of the European Union, it must be presumed that detention conditions in Romania do not give rise to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. That presumption may be rebutted—and the executing judicial authority thereby required to seek further information—only where a specific and concrete risk of a breach of fundamental rights is put forward. Accordingly, a request for information is not an automatic consequence of a surrender request, but must be supported by specific elements advanced by the applicant or otherwise known to the Court of Appeal (for example, where serious systemic deficiencies in prison conditions in a given Member State constitute a matter of common knowledge or have been the subject of recent rulings by the supreme courts).
28/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 15599/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: territoriality ground requires pending domestic proceedings for the same facts
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Dolj Tribunal, Romania, and confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Craiova, for offences of human trafficking and exploitation of prostitution. The requested person opposed surrender, arguing that some of the alleged conduct had been committed in Italy and that surrender could therefore be refused on territoriality grounds. The Italian Supreme Court held that, where the facts underlying a European Arrest Warrant were committed wholly or partly in Italy, the optional ground for refusal based on territoriality applies only if criminal proceedings for the same facts are already pending in Italy. Since no such domestic proceedings were pending, the territoriality objection was rejected. The Court also dismissed the challenge based on detention conditions, noting that the Romanian authorities had identified a different detention facility from the one criticised by the defence and had provided information on available activities and minimum personal space. The appeal was declared inadmissible and the surrender order remained in force.
28/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 15855/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW and time limit (5 days) for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court
✕
Summary
The judgment was delivered, with reasons given simultaneously, at the hearing of 31 March 2026, in the presence of the applicant’s defence counsel. As the applicant was absent, the judgment was served on him personally on 2 April 2026, in the Italian language, since it appears from the case file that the applicant speaks and understands Italian. From the date of service on the requested person, the five-day time limit — running from legal knowledge of the judgment — provided for by Article 22(1) of Law No. 69, began to run for the filing of an appeal before the Court of Cassation.
21/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 14656/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW and evidence of an enforceable judgment (not necessarily definitive)
✕
Summary
The executing judicial authority is required only to verify the existence of a valid legal basis for the surrender, and cannot review either the validity of such basis or the merits of any remedies pursued within the legal system of the issuing State. Surrender is therefore lawful where the European Arrest Warrant has been issued on the basis of a conviction that is enforceable but not yet final, since Article 8 of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 attaches relevance solely to the enforceability of the judgment, and not to its finality, as an essential condition of the system of cooperation aimed at the surrender of requested persons between EU Member States. Accordingly, the filing of an application seeking leave to appeal out of time is irrelevant for the purposes of surrender, as such application does not, in itself, affect the enforceability of the judgment underlying the European Arrest Warrant.
14/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 13714/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW, risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and assurances provided by the issuing State
✕
Summary
EAW execution cannot lead to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court emphasized that when concrete risks of Article 3 ECHR violations exist, executing authorities must assess whether there is real danger of such treatment based on objective, reliable, precise and updated information. The Court noted that recent case law has recognized Romania's overcoming of structural prison system deficiencies through comprehensive initiatives and a 2020-2025 action plan, following the ECtHR pilot judgment in Rezmives v. Romania (2017). The Venice Court of Appeal had properly applied these principles by obtaining updated specific information from Romanian authorities about detention conditions. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, finding that Romanian authorities provided adequate individualized information about detention conditions in Bucharest-Rahova prison (3 sqm minimum individual space with compensatory factors) and Baia Mare prison (4 sqm in semi-open regime with extensive freedom of movement). The Court noted that Romania had addressed previous structural deficiencies through massive interventions following the Rezmives judgment, and that the 2025 People's Advocate report did not specifically relate to the prisons where the appellant would be detained.
10/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 13358/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW and detention conditions: in light of Romania’s progress, further assurances are required only if a specific and concrete risk is shown
✕
Summary
As regards the detention conditions in Romania, the Romanian authorities submitted to the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe — which is responsible for supervising the execution of ECtHR judgments — the Action Plan for the five-year period 2020–2025. In that official document, the measures aimed at addressing the issues identified by the ECtHR were set out, through the introduction of administrative and legislative remedies, both preventive (reduction in the use of pre-trial detention, construction of new prison facilities, and upgrading of existing institutions) and compensatory (the possibility of obtaining sentence reductions in the event of detention in inadequate conditions). The Italian Supreme Court considered those measures capable of overcoming the structural shortcomings that had been identified, holding that, in light of the principle of mutual trust among Member States of the European Union, it must be presumed that detention conditions in Romania are not such as to give rise to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. That presumption may be rebutted — with the consequent obligation for the executing authority to seek further information — only where a specific and concrete risk of a violation of the requested person’s fundamental rights has been shown. The panel therefore ruled out the continued existence of a systemic deficiency in detention conditions in Romanian prisons and held that, where the defence relies on outdated information, it is lawful not to request further information from the issuing State.
08/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 13033/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW and flight risk: relevance of post-conviction departure and statements of the requested person
✕
Summary
The requirements of concreteness and currency of the risk of absconding in European Arrest Warrant proceedings must be assessed by the court dealing with precautionary measures in light of the specific needs and characteristics of surrender proceedings. Accordingly, it is reasonable to attach weight to the applicant’s unjustified departure from Romanian territory, occurring precisely at the time of the conviction imposed on him, as a factual element from which the risk of future evasion of surrender may be inferred. For the same reasons, it is consistent to ground the finding of a “high” risk of absconding on the very statements made by the requested person during the validation hearing, where he declared that he had participated in the first-instance proceedings but left the country after lodging the appeal and, expressly, that he had moved to Italy—where his mother is established—seeking refuge at a residence considered, in abstract terms, suitable for the application of a non-custodial measure, thereby intending to evade the consequences of criminal proceedings and of a conviction which he considers unjust.
17/02/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 8996/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
Decision on precautionary measureEAW
EAW: detention conditions and assurances from the issuing State
✕
Summary
In the context of the European Arrest Warrant, the judicial authority of the executing State may refuse to execute the request, even where the issuing State has provided assurances that the person concerned will not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, but only where, on the basis of precise elements, it nevertheless finds that there is a risk that the conditions of detention would be contrary to Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
17/02/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 6770/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW concerning a conviction for multiple crimes: the Italian judicial authority cannot delegate to the issuing judicial authority the determination of the sentence to be executed
✕
Summary
The judgment, while granting the surrender request on the basis of an EAW issued for the enforcement of a custodial sentence, must indicate the extent of the sentence to be served, while leaving to the sentencing judicial authority the task of recalculating the penalty. In the case of an EAW issued for the enforcement of a conviction relating to multiple offences, compliance with the minimum threshold of the sentence (not less than four months), as provided by Article 7(4) of Law No. 69 of 22 April 2005, must be assessed with reference to the overall sentence imposed, and not to the sentence applied to each individual offence. The judgment must therefore be quashed, so that the Court of Appeal may remedy the identified shortcomings, if necessary by initiating further communication with the issuing judicial authority, specifically aimed at obtaining at least the transmission of the judgment — not for the purpose of recognition and enforcement in Italy (which that State has declared not to allow), but in order to determine the enforceable title and the duration of the sentence to be executed.
28/10/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 35601/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
Reversal and remandEAW
EAW: assurances provided by the issuing State and possibility, for the executing State, to refuse the execution
✕
Summary
In matters of the European Arrest Warrant, where the issuing State provides assurances that the arrested person will not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, the executing State may refuse surrender only if there exists a concrete risk of detention conditions contrary to Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The assessment of detention conditions must be overall and comprehensive, and must therefore take into account a range of factors, including whether there are elements capable of offsetting any shortcomings in relation to conventional standards.
04/06/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 21256/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Risk of inhuman or degrading treatment: documents may also be filed before the Supreme Court
✕
Summary
The burden on the requested person to submit elements and circumstances capable of substantiating the risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment may also be discharged at the appellate stage before the Court of Cassation. This is because such materials consist of reliable international sources and information in the public domain, which may be directly assessed by the appellate court.
06/05/2021 · Italian Supreme Court · 18126/2021
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
Reversal and remandEAW
Extradition to Turkey refused: ByLock use and alleged Gülen links did not satisfy double driminality
✕
Summary
The case concerned a Turkish extradition request for the prosecution of the requested person on allegations of setting up or running an armed criminal terrorist group linked to Fethullah Gülen. The Romanian court found that the factual basis of the accusation consisted mainly of the alleged use of the ByLock encrypted messaging application, sending emails and carrying out money transfers said to be connected to a terrorist organisation. The Court held that those allegations did not correspond to an offence under Romanian law, since mere use of ByLock and generic assertions of membership in the Gülen movement did not fall within the Romanian offence of setting up or running a terrorist organisation. It also considered that the way the allegations were formulated supported the conclusion that there were serious reasons to believe the request was aimed at prosecuting or punishing the requested person on political or ideological grounds, or because of membership of a particular social group, and that his situation could worsen if surrendered. The Court therefore found that the statutory and Convention conditions for extradition were not met and dismissed Türkiye’s request.
24/12/2019 · Bucharest Court of Appeal
🇷🇴Romania → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
General Conditions for Extradition and Enforcement of Foreign Sentences under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Romania against a Syrian national convicted of fraud offences and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment by Romanian courts.Romanian authorities requested extradition for enforcement of the final sentence pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition.The requested person was apprehended in Kilis after entering Türkiye and was temporarily detained pending extradition proceedings.The Kilis Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Article 18 of the former Turkish Criminal Code and the European Convention on Extradition.The defence appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation upheld the extradition admissibility decision.Before examining the concrete case, the Court provided a general overview of Turkish extradition law, emphasizing:- the constitutional basis of extradition;- the interaction between domestic and international extradition norms;- the positive and negative conditions governing extradition requests.The Court held that:- the requested person was not a Turkish citizen;- a final foreign conviction existed;- the offence constituted an extraditable offence;- none of the refusal grounds under Turkish law applied;- and the extradition request complied with treaty obligations under the European Convention on Extradition.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore affirmed.
24/07/2014 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 15th Criminal Chamber · E. 2014/16190, K. 2014/13991
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedExtradition
Country Contributor
Adrian Șandru
Sandru Avocati
Adrian Șandru is a Criminal Defense Lawyer at the Bucharest Bar, founder of Șandru Avocati, and a Ph.D. candidate in Criminal Procedure Law at the Institute of Legal Research “Acad. Andrei Rădulescu” of the Romanian Academy.
Adrian is renowned for his extensive experience and exceptional expertise in complex criminal procedures, as well as for his remarkable results in areas such as international judicial cooperation, crimes related to frauds with European or national funds, procedures of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the management of complex cases in the economic criminal sphere. Additionally, Adrian specializes in whistleblowing legislation and provides support to companies in implementing compliance and prevention systems in criminal law, as well as in managing sensitive internal investigations within the company.
Adrian Șandru co-authored the first reference work on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in Romania, a highly regarded book also published in English. He has contributed numerous specialized articles in the legal field, actively participating in conferences and professional training programs, both in Romania and at the European level. He has been designated as an expert representing Romania for various international bodies such as the Council of Europe and Eurojust.
In 2019, Adrian Șandru received the Rising Star in White Collar Crime Matters award from the Romanian Journal of Business Criminal Law. In 2020 and 2021, he received the “Dreptul” Journal Award for scientific journalism in the field of law, marking the first time in Romania that someone has received this distinction in two consecutive years.
Adrian Șandru is an active member of various associations of criminal lawyers in Europe and the UK, collaborating with them on numerous projects. This experience has allowed him to accumulate a unique know-how, which he effectively applies in representing his clients, whether individuals or legal entities, in complex criminal cases at both national and European levels.
In addition to his publishing activities in Romania and abroad, Adrian is also a member of the editorial board of the “Dreptul” Law Review, one of the most respected legal publications in Romania. In this role, he coordinates the publication of articles in the fields of criminal law and criminal procedure.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving Romania

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →