High Court dismisses extradition appeal in Romanian fraud case

The High Court has refused permission to appeal an extradition order in Ardeleanu v Tribunal of Bacau, Romania [2025] EWHC 2562 (Admin), rejecting challenges based on warrant particulars, unlawfully obtained evidence, and family life considerations.

Background

George Ardeleanu faced extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of 6 years and 6 months for leading an organised criminal group involved in ATM skimming operations across Germany and France. The group used fraudulently obtained card details to make cash withdrawals in the USA, Colombia, and Morocco. The sentence merged with an activated suspended sentence from 2011 convictions for possessing card-reading devices.

This was the second extradition attempt. A previous warrant issued in 2016 resulted in discharge due to insufficient prison conditions assurances. The present warrant was issued on 8 February 2023.

Section 2 validity

Ardeleanu contended the warrant failed to adequately particularise the merged suspended sentence offences, rendering it invalid under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Mr Justice Sweeting dismissed this ground as unarguable.

Applying Alexander v Public Prosecutor's Office, Marseille [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin) and Jipa v Romania [2024] EWHC 2785 (Admin), the court held that further information could cure deficiencies in warrant particulars unless there had been a "wholesale failure". The warrant referenced the merged sentence with sufficient detail, including dates, court, and reference numbers. Ardeleanu had attended both trials and appealed both decisions, demonstrating his awareness. The district judge had properly considered the warrant alongside supplementary information provided by Romania.

Article 5 challenge

Ardeleanu argued that wiretap evidence obtained by Romanian security services—later declared unconstitutional—formed the basis of his conviction, particularly for the organised crime group offence. His expert, Dr Chirita, stated there was "an extremely high probability" the case would not have proceeded without this evidence.

The court found this ground unarguable. Dr Chirita had qualified his opinion by acknowledging Romanian law's principle of free appreciation of evidence, noting he could not say with certainty that the outcome would have differed. Whilst the wiretaps may have initially directed the investigation, other evidence was subsequently obtained. The district judge had carefully analysed all evidence and correctly concluded there was no flagrant denial of justice merely because some evidence was obtained unlawfully.

Article 8 considerations

The Article 8 challenge centred on delay and family circumstances. Whilst acknowledging a six-year delay since the previous discharge, the district judge found this was outweighed by Ardeleanu's fugitive status, the seriousness of the offending, and the substantial sentence outstanding.

Ardeleanu sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his wife's mental health following a car accident in June 2024. Mr Justice Sweeting refused prior authority for this evidence. Even taken at its highest, the new material—describing anxiety, depression, and driving difficulties—did not demonstrate the exceptionally severe consequences required under Andrysiewicz v Poland [2025] UKSC 23 to outweigh the public interest in extradition. The described hardship was ordinary rather than exceptional, particularly given the family's location in Greater London with available public transport and state support systems.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused on all grounds.