New Crimeline-9BR Extradition Hub article - Marosan v Romania [2021] EWHC 3098 and an underlying theme: how to ascertain the EU law obligations of foreign courts

By Stefan Hyman.

This post concerns the judgment of Fordham J in Marosan v Court of Cluj-Napoca [2021] EWHC 3098 / [2021] WLR(D) 594 (19 November 2021), which held that Article 26 of the EAW Framework Decision (EAW FD) requires the issuing Member State to deduct, from a term of imprisonment , periods of ‘dual remand’ comprising contemporaneous (i) remand on an European arrest warrant (EAW) and (ii) remand in domestic criminal proceedings, where the latter is not then counted towards a custodial sentence. Certification and leave to appeal, sought by the CPS, were refused by a separate judgment of 28 January 2022 (Marosa v Court of Cluj-Napoca [2022] EWHC 169 (Admin)).

The post also briefly touches upon a broader issue disclosed by this judgment, namely the responsibility of an English extradition court to ascertain what would be required of a foreign court upon surrender under under the EAW FD, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2020 (TACA), or EU law more broadly.

Read the the full article here.

In Marosan, Alex Tinsley appeared for the Requested Person whilst Hannah Burton represented the judicial authority.