Romania Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure

Extradition cases involving Romania — Requested and Requesting State

🇷🇴

Romania

Romania Extradition Law & Case Law — 41 cases

2
As requested
state
39
As requesting
state
Case Law
EAW surrender overturned: generic detention information insufficient under Article 3 ECHR
✕
Summary
The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation reviewed an order surrendering a requested person to Romania under an EAW issued for the execution of a prison sentence. The defence relied on updated material concerning systemic detention conditions in Romania and on the requested person’s serious psychiatric condition, including severe depression with psychotic features and suicidal ideation. The Court held that, once a concrete Article 3 ECHR risk has been raised, the executing court must obtain sufficiently specific and individualised information concerning both the actual detention conditions and the treatment that will be available to the requested person. Since the Romanian information did not adequately identify the conditions of the cells, the personal space available or sufficiently address the requested person’s psychiatric needs, the surrender decision was annulled and the case remitted for a new assessment.
10/09/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 33336/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
Reversal and remandEAW
EAW surrender upheld: five-year lawful residence required for territorial integration
✕
Summary
The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed as inadmissible an appeal against the surrender of a requested person to Romania under a prosecution European Arrest Warrant concerning several organised-crime-related offences. The Court held that the five-year period of lawful, effective and continuous residence or stay in Italy is a mandatory statutory condition, rather than a merely indicative factor, for applying the rules protecting persons sufficiently integrated in the executing State. Evidence of criminal proceedings in Italy concerning conduct dating back to 2012 did not establish lawful and stable territorial integration, while the documentary evidence produced mainly referred to the period from 2025 onwards. The Court also held that the duration of the Romanian custodial measure does not begin to run before surrender to the issuing State and that the Italian surrender detention does not affect the continuing validity of that foreign measure.
09/09/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 33226/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW surrender set aside for insufficient individualized information on detention conditions
✕
Summary
The requested person, sought by Romania under an EAW for the execution of a five-year prison sentence, challenged the surrender order on the ground that the information supplied by the issuing State did not sufficiently identify the detention conditions to which he would actually be subjected. The Supreme Court reiterated that, where reliable material indicates a general risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, the executing court must obtain individualized information concerning the prison regime, including the actual personal space available to the requested person. It held that the Romanian information, while describing possible prison regimes, did not clarify the number of prisoners sharing each cell or the usable floor space available to each detainee. The surrender decision was therefore annulled and the case remanded for a new assessment, while the separate argument based on the requested person’s alleged social integration in Italy was rejected.
04/09/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 32949/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
Reversal and remandEAW
EAW surrender confirmed despite seriously ill child: family life rights do not automatically bar surrender
✕
Summary
A Romanian national challenged his surrender under a European Arrest Warrant issued for the execution of a three-year and four-month prison sentence for human trafficking, arguing that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his relationship with his seriously ill child, who was receiving medical treatment in Italy, and would expose him to inadequate detention conditions in Romania. The Supreme Court of Cassation held that the best interests of the child and the requested person’s right to family life must be assessed against the interests underlying execution of the EAW and do not create an automatic bar to surrender. In the circumstances, the continuing presence of the child’s mother, the possibility of maintaining remote contact and the lack of sufficient evidence that the father was indispensable to the child’s care justified the finding that surrender was proportionate. The separate complaint concerning Romanian prison conditions was declared inadmissible because it was insufficiently specific, and the appeal was dismissed.
04/09/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 32950/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Serious psychiatric illness and suicide risk require specific assessment of detention pending EAW surrender
✕
Summary
The Italian Supreme Court partially allowed an appeal concerning detention pending execution of a European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania. It upheld the lower court’s assessment that a concrete risk of flight existed, relying on the requested person’s lack of stable residence, employment and social integration in Italy. However, it found the reasoning insufficient and merely apparent as regards the compatibility of continued prison detention with the requested person’s serious psychiatric condition, documented history of hospitalisation, suicidal ideation and elevated suicide risk. The Court held that the executing court had failed to engage substantively with the medical evidence and could not simply assert that adequate treatment was available in prison. The detention order was therefore quashed insofar as it concerned compatibility with the requested person’s health, and the case was remanded to the Ancona Court of Appeal for a fresh assessment.
20/08/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 31659/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
Decision on precautionary measureEAW
Refusal to execute an EAW requires five years of actual and continuous residence in Italy
✕
Summary
The Italian Supreme Court declared inadmissible an appeal against a decision ordering surrender to Romania under an European Arrest Warrant issued for the execution of a final prison sentence. The requested person relied on the optional ground for refusal based on residence in Italy under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005. The Court held that formal registration of residence is not sufficient where the requested person has not shown actual and continuous residence or stay in Italy for at least five years and where other indicators, including lack of stable housing, lack of Italian language knowledge, absence of demonstrated tax and social-security compliance and continuing family ties abroad, point against genuine integration. The Court also held that documents first produced in cassation, including evidence concerning the spouse’s residence, could not be relied upon to establish the required degree of integration. The surrender decision was therefore left in force.
18/08/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 31557/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW surrender granted: Romanian prison conditions and healthcare found compatible with Article 3 ECHR
✕
Summary
The Italian courts ordered the surrender of the requested person to Romania under an European Arrest Warrant for the execution of a final sentence of nineteen years and four months’ imprisonment. The appellant argued that detention in Romania would expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment because of inadequate personal space and prison conditions and that his cardiac conditions created a concrete risk of serious deterioration of his health. The Supreme Court held that the Romanian authorities had provided sufficiently individualized information showing that the requested person would have at least three square metres of personal space, adequate structural and sanitary conditions, daily outdoor exercise and access to appropriate medical care, including prison hospitals and external healthcare facilities where necessary. The appeal was therefore dismissed, as the information obtained excluded a real risk contrary to Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter.
06/08/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 30187/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania upheld: detention-space assessment must consider compensatory factors
✕
Summary
The case concerned a Romanian execution European Arrest Warrant issued for the enforcement of a two-year prison sentence for continued theft, committed and attempted. The requested person opposed surrender, arguing that Romanian detention conditions would expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment because the guaranteed personal space in semi-open detention would be three square metres including furniture, and that surrender should be postponed due to pending criminal proceedings in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that the assessment of detention conditions must be concrete and overall, taking into account not only the metric calculation of personal space but also compensatory factors such as the duration of the detention regime, freedom of movement outside the cell, access to activities and the general dignity of prison conditions. In the case at hand, the information supplied by the Romanian authorities identified the likely prison, the applicable detention regimes, a minimum space of three to four square metres, open cells, access to common areas and adequate hygiene, lighting, ventilation, heating and sanitary conditions; these elements were sufficient to exclude a real risk under Article 3 ECHR. The Court also held that postponement of surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005 is discretionary and cannot be challenged in cassation merely on grounds of reasoning where the requested person had not specifically sought postponement and the Court of Appeal had considered the absence of precautionary measures in the Italian proceedings.
23/07/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 28007/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW: double criminality satisfied despite lack of complaint and statute of limitations
✕
Summary
Romania sought the surrender of the requested person for the execution of a final sentence of one year and ten months’ imprisonment for unlawful entry into a dwelling, aggravated criminal damage, and driving under the influence of alcohol and psychotropic substances. The Court of Cassation held that the optional ground for refusal based on residence and social integration did not apply because continuous residence in Italy for at least five years had not been established. It further held that double criminality concerns only whether the conduct constitutes an offence in both legal systems, and is unaffected by the fact that prosecution in Italy would require a complaint by the victim. The possible expiry of the limitation period under Italian law was likewise irrelevant, since limitation is no longer a ground for refusing surrender and, in any event, Italy had no jurisdiction over the offence committed in Romania.
23/07/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 28008/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Supreme Court review in EAW cases does not extend to the merits of detention conditions or social integration
✕
Summary
The requested person challenged his surrender to Romania under a prosecutorial European Arrest Warrant for attempted murder, relying on prison conditions in Romania and his alleged stable integration in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court held that, following the 2021 reform, cassation review in EAW proceedings is limited to violations of law and does not extend to alleged contradictions or illogicality in the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. It found that the executing court had obtained individualised information concerning the destination prison and available cell space and had excluded a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment; the Supreme Court could not reassess the logical soundness of that evaluation. The complaint concerning stable integration likewise challenged the merits of the lower court’s assessment and was therefore inadmissible.
10/07/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 26104/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Semi-open detention conditions may offset personal cell space below three square metres
✕
Summary
The requested person challenged his surrender to Romania for the execution of a final sentence for aggravated theft, arguing that the available personal space in the proposed detention cell would be below three square metres. The Italian Supreme Court held that fixed furnishings must be deducted when calculating usable cell space, but that a shortfall below the three-square-metre threshold does not automatically require refusal where adequate compensating factors are present. It found that detention in a semi-open regime, with confinement to the cell essentially limited to night-time and access to wider common areas and activities during the day, sufficiently offset the reduced cell space. The Court therefore concluded that the overall detention conditions did not expose the requested person to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and upheld surrender.
09/07/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 26043/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
General reports on Romanian prisons do not justify supplementary inquiries without an individualised detention risk
✕
Summary
The requested person challenged his surrender to Romania for the execution of a four-year sentence for participation in a criminal organisation involved in drug trafficking, alleging a risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions. The Italian Supreme Court held that mutual trust between Member States may be rebutted only by reliable, specific and up-to-date material showing a real and individualised risk to the requested person. It found that the reports relied upon were either outdated or concerned categories of prisoners not relevant to the case, while no concrete personal circumstances capable of establishing such a risk had been alleged. The executing court was therefore not required to seek supplementary information from the Romanian authorities, and surrender was upheld.
09/07/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 26062/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
The four-month extradition threshold is assessed by reference to the total sentence imposed, not its individual components (Tobosaru & Tofan v Romania)
✕
Summary
The High Court dismissed two appeals against extradition orders to Romania and confirmed that, in conviction cases involving multiple offences, the four-month threshold is assessed by reference to the single aggregate, merged or cumulated sentence imposed by the requesting State. The executing court is not required to disaggregate that sentence or determine the portion attributable to each individual offence, even where some underlying conduct does not satisfy double criminality, provided that the specialty principle protects the requested person after surrender. The Court held that Pilecki v Poland remains binding after Brexit and is consistent with both sections 10 and 65 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 599 of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. It also rejected the Article 8 challenges and recorded that two non-existent authorities, apparently originating from unverified use of generative artificial intelligence, had been cited in earlier prosecution submissions but had no effect on the appeal.
08/07/2026 · High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court · [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin)
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedExtradition
Surrender to Romania granted: generic Roma detention-risk allegations did not bar execution of prosecution EAW
✕
Summary
The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for human trafficking, corresponding in Italy to offences relating to the induction and exploitation of prostitution. The requested person challenged the surrender order on three grounds: the alleged lack of reasoning in the domestic Romanian coercive measure, the alleged commission of the offence in Italy, and the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions due to his Roma ethnicity. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that, in a prosecution EAW, the issuing judicial authority is not required to state the reasons justifying the internal coercive measure, and the executing authority does not review the necessity of the requested person’s presence in the issuing State, except where the warrant is issued exclusively for investigative purposes. The Court also rejected the territoriality argument, recalling that refusal on that ground requires an objective indication that the Italian State is actually asserting jurisdiction, such as pending investigations for the same facts, which was not shown in the case. Finally, the Court found the detention-risk complaint generic: the defence had merely referred to a report concerning the situation of Roma persons in Romania, without demonstrating concrete and current systemic deficiencies capable of exposing the requested person to inhuman or degrading treatment. The surrender order was therefore upheld.
24/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 23593/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: detention assurances and lack of pleaded integration defeated refusal grounds
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for the execution of a sentence of two years, eleven months and fifteen days’ imprisonment imposed by the Motru Tribunal for offences including assault and bodily injury. The Court of Appeal of Palermo ordered surrender. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that the information provided by Romania did not sufficiently identify the prison where the sentence would actually be served, did not clarify whether the minimum personal space excluded furniture, and did not properly address the conditions in Rahova prison, where he would initially be placed. He also argued that the Court of Appeal had failed to assess his integration in Italy for the purposes of the optional refusal ground based on social rehabilitation. The Italian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. As to detention conditions, it held that the Romanian authorities had provided specific and adequate information. The requested person would spend only two and a half days in quarantine at Bucharest-Rahova, where the three square metres of personal space did not include the bed and furniture. Although Targu Jiu was indicated as the “very probable” place of execution, the Court considered that the semi-open or open regime, the possibility of spending substantial time outside the cell, and access to work, educational, cultural, therapeutic and rehabilitative activities were relevant compensatory factors. The Court also referred to recent case law finding that Romania had overcome earlier structural deficiencies in its prison system following reforms adopted after the ECtHR pilot judgment in Rezmiveș and Others. As to social rehabilitation, the Court held that the defence had failed to provide specific allegations or evidence showing lawful and effective residence or stay in Italy for at least five years, as required by Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005. The mere assertion of the refusal ground could not trigger an exploratory assessment by the court. The surrender order was therefore upheld.
18/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22879/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: residence-based refusal ground does not apply to prosecution EAW
✕
Summary
The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Tribunal of Constanza for fraud, based on a Romanian pre-trial detention warrant. The requested person challenged surrender, relying on his alleged long-term residence and work activity in Italy, the alleged uncertainty surrounding the continued validity of the Romanian precautionary title, and the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in Romania. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that residence and social rehabilitation are irrelevant in relation to a prosecution EAW, since Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005 applies only to EAWs issued for the execution of a custodial sentence or security measure. The Court also found that the Romanian authorities had expressly confirmed both the continuing interest in surrender and the validity of the pre-trial detention warrant. Finally, as to detention conditions, the Court held that no systemic risk currently justified derogation from mutual trust in respect of Romania and that, in any event, the Romanian authorities had provided specific and individualized information on the detention path of the requested person, including pre-trial detention in Constanza and possible sentence execution in Slobozia. The surrender order was therefore upheld.
18/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22776/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: five-year residence requirement remains a prerequisite for social rehabilitation refusal ground
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the execution of a six-year prison sentence imposed for continuing theft offences committed in Romania between August 2018 and June 2022. The Court of Appeal of Milan ordered surrender. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that surrender should have been refused under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005 because of his residence and social integration in Italy, and that the Italian court had failed to verify the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Romanian prisons. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that, for the social rehabilitation refusal ground in execution EAW cases, the five-year lawful and effective residence or stay requirement remains a necessary prerequisite. The 2023 reform broadened the category of persons who may invoke the refusal ground, extending it beyond Italian and EU citizens, but did not remove the minimum five-year residence requirement. Only once that temporal requirement is established must the court assess the further indicators of integration listed in Article 18-bis, including family, work, linguistic, cultural, social and economic ties. In the present case, the Court of Appeal had found no proof of stable residence in Italy for at least five years; the documents showed, at most, residence from 2023, while the commission of offences in Romania between 2018 and 2022 pointed against stable integration in Italy. As to detention conditions, the Court held that the defence had submitted only generic allegations and had not identified any specific, current and reliable source showing a concrete risk in Romanian prisons. In the absence of such material, the executing court was not required to seek supplementary information. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the surrender order upheld.
17/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22624/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: drug transfer satisfied double criminality and postponement remained discretionary
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the execution of a prison sentence resulting from two convictions: one for unlawful drug trafficking committed in December 2020 and one for personal injury committed in February 2016, the latter conviction having led to the revocation of a previously suspended sentence. The Court of Appeal of Florence ordered surrender, finding that the offences satisfied double criminality, that no refusal grounds applied, that the requested person was not genuinely integrated in Italy, and that postponement of surrender was not justified despite pending Italian criminal proceedings. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that the drug offence concerned only the free transfer of 1.04 grams of cannabis and would amount merely to an administrative violation under Italian law; that surrender should have been postponed because the Italian proceedings concerned more serious facts and were already at trial stage; and that his family ties in Italy established sufficient social integration. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that the Romanian drug offence concerned the transfer of drugs to another person and therefore corresponded to the offence under Article 73 of Presidential Decree No. 309/1990, not to the administrative offence relating only to possession for personal use. The Court further held that postponement of surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005 is discretionary and had been reasonably refused, given that the Romanian sentence was final and significant, while the Italian proceedings were still pending at first instance. Temporary transfer to Italy was also unavailable because no request had been made by the issuing judicial authority. Finally, the Court held that the mere presence of the requested person’s mother and partner in Italy did not prove stable integration, especially in the absence of evidence of lawful employment, identity documents or genuine social roots. The surrender order was therefore upheld.
17/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22623/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: driving without a licence satisfied double criminality despite foreign recidivism
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for the execution of a sentence imposed by the Calafat Tribunal. The Court of Appeal of Milan ordered surrender only for the offence of driving without a licence, refusing surrender for the other offences. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that double criminality was lacking because the Italian offence requires recidivism within two years and the previous conviction had been issued in Romania, not in Italy; he also relied on social rehabilitation, family life, the best interests of his minor daughter, proportionality, and execution of the sentence in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that double criminality does not require perfect correspondence between the legal elements of the foreign and domestic offences: it is sufficient that the conduct is criminal in both legal systems. Recidivism, understood as repetition of unlawful conduct, was not a concept exclusive to Italian law and could be assessed by reference to the Romanian conviction. The Court further held that the requested person had not shown lawful and effective residence in Italy for at least five years, since the relevant links documented by the defence dated only from 2024. The complaints based on the best interests of the child were considered generic, as no specific evidence had been provided on cohabitation, the child’s actual situation, or any systemic deficiencies in Romania affecting detained parents or their children. The Court also rejected the proportionality argument, noting that the sentence exceeded the four-month threshold for execution EAWs and that execution in Italy cannot be requested outside the statutory refusal grounds. The surrender order was upheld.
17/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22774/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
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
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.
Country Contributor
Mihai Teriș
Teriș Law Firm
Mihai Teriș is a Romanian lawyer admitted to the Bucharest Bar, within the National Union of Romanian Bar Associations, since 2008.
He is the founder of the individual law office Teriș-Pîrșoagă Gheorghe-Mihai, established in 2011, where he practises law on a full-time basis. For the purposes of clear and consistent national and international identification, the firm also operates under the name Teris Law Firm, a concise and easily recognisable professional identity.
His practice is focused on criminal law and criminal defence, with particular attention to cases in which individual rights, personal liberty, and procedural safeguards are at stake. His work is based on direct involvement in each case, careful assessment of the factual and legal issues, and the development of a defence strategy tailored to the client’s specific position and objectives.
In criminal matters, he considers legal strategy to be a decisive element of effective defence. A well-founded defence can influence the outcome of proceedings, protect fundamental rights, including personal liberty, and help identify the most appropriate legal solutions in light of the evidence and the procedural context.
Through Teris Law Firm, he provides legal assistance and representation before courts and competent authorities, combining legal rigour, confidentiality, objectivity, and professional responsibility.
Country Contributor
George Zlati
Zlati Ionescu Chiperi SCA | România
George Zlati is a Partner at Zlati Ionescu Chiperi SCA (ZIC Legal), a Criminal Defense Lawyer based in Cluj-Napoca (Transilvania) with national coverage, and holds a Ph.D. in Cybercrime from Babeș-Bolyai University. He is also a university lecturer at the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences of the “1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba Iulia and an external collaborator at the National Institute of Magistracy (INM).
George is renowned for his over 14 years of extensive experience in white-collar crime and cybercrime, as well as for his track record in handling economic-financial crimes, illegal access to computer systems, and blockchain or crypto-assets litigation. Additionally, George specializes in cross-border investigations and international judicial cooperation, particularly concerning European Arrest Warrants (EAW) and extraditions.
George Zlati authored the first Treatise on Cybercrime in Romania, a highly regarded reference work published in 2020. He has contributed numerous specialized works that have been cited in mandatory decisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, actively participating in the professional training of magistrates both in Romania and at the European level. He has been designated as an expert for various international projects such as the Eurojust Euromed Justice Programme and the Max Planck Institute’s WiSKoS project.
In 2020, George Zlati received the prestigious “Vintilă Dongoroz” award from the Union of Romanian Jurists in the Criminal Law section for his foundational treatise.
George represents both individuals and legal entities in complex criminal cases before specialized prosecution offices (DNA, DIICOT, EPPO) and courts up to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving Romania

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →