🇫🇮 Finland → 🇷🇴 Romania

Romania requested the surrender of the requested person from Finland under a European Arrest Warrant for the execution of a five-year custodial sentence. Although general information showed overcrowding and inadequate conditions in Romanian prisons, and the initial information indicated that the requested person would have less than 3 sq.m. of personal space in Focșan prison, Romanian authorities subsequently provided an individualised assurance guaranteeing at least 3 sq.m. of personal space. The Supreme Court held that such an assurance, transmitted through the competent authorities and specifically issued for the case, was reliable and had to be given substantial weight in the absence of precise evidence showing exceptional circumstances capable of undermining it. The Court therefore found no real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter and allowed the surrender to Romania.

Romania requested the surrender of the requested person from Finland under a European Arrest Warrant for the execution of a four-year custodial sentence. The Supreme Court held that the allocation of less than 3 sq.m. of personal space in the semi-open regime at Braila Prison gave rise to a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter. It further held that this presumption could be rebutted only if the relevant mitigating criteria were satisfied cumulatively, including that the reduction in personal space was short, occasional and minor and accompanied by sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell. The fact that cell doors remained open during the day did not make the period spent in overcrowded accommodation short or insignificant, and the Court therefore refused surrender because there were reasonable grounds to suspect a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.