Petrov v Regional Court Sofia: extradition appeal refused on Article 3 grounds

The High Court has refused permission to appeal in Zlatko Petrov v Regional Court in Sofia, Bulgaria [2025] EWHC 2268 (Admin), upholding an extradition order despite arguments that Bulgarian prison conditions would breach Article 3 ECHR rights.

Case background

Mr Zlatko Petrov challenged District Judge Leake's December 2024 extradition order to Bulgaria, where he faces a two-year sentence for theft committed in September 2016. The conviction warrant was issued in June 2022, with Petrov arrested in March 2023.

Following the established precedent in Neshkov v Bulgaria (2015), which rebutted the presumption of compliance regarding Bulgarian detention conditions, the court required specific assurances about prison conditions before ordering extradition.

The assurances provided

Bulgaria provided two detailed assurances addressing detention conditions. The first, dated May 2023, guaranteed minimum living space of four square metres per prisoner (excluding sanitary facilities), constant access to toilet facilities and running water, and detention in Sofia Prison's main building, hospital, or approved hostels (Kremikovtsi or Kazichene).

The second assurance from September 2024 provided additional detail, confirming daily repairs to improve conditions, a completely renovated section within Sofia Prison, standard sanitation facilities with hot and cold water, natural light and ventilation, daily outdoor access, and pest control measures including new mattresses.

Article 3 challenge rejected

Petrov's sole ground of appeal centred on alleged real risk of Article 3 breaches due to conditions at Sofia Prison's old block or Kremikovtsi hostel, notwithstanding the assurances provided.

Mr Justice Sweeting applied the established Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK criteria for evaluating diplomatic assurances, requiring that they: prevent Article 3 treatment if fulfilled; be given in good faith; have sound objective basis for fulfilment; and be capable of verification.

The court distinguished the case from Vangelov v Bulgaria (No. 2) [2021] EWHC 427, noting that unlike in Vangelov, the Bulgarian assurances explicitly guaranteed four square metres living space and in-cell sanitary access rather than corridor facilities.

Critical CPT report addressed

Whilst acknowledging the 2022 Committee for the Prevention of Torture report's "scathing criticism" of certain Bulgarian facilities, Mr Justice Sweeting found the problems did not affect the entire prison estate. The assurances specifically addressed material conditions and provided adequate detail about improvements made.

The court emphasised that assurances need not address every CPT criticism, but must ensure Article 3 compliance if implemented. References to "daily repairs" and "completely renovated" sections, whilst potentially vague, were sufficiently detailed when considered alongside the specific guarantees provided.

Verification mechanisms

Bulgaria's cooperation with CPT prison visits and monitoring by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee provided adequate verification mechanisms. Crucially, no evidence suggested Bulgaria had previously breached similar extradition assurances.

The court applied the principle from Georgiev v Regional Prosecutor's Office, Shuman, Bulgaria [2018] EWHC 359, that Bulgarian assurances "must be accepted unless there is cogent reason to believe they will not be honoured," given Bulgaria's EU membership and ECHR signatory status.

Legal significance

The judgement reinforces that detailed, specific assurances addressing particular detention conditions can overcome Article 3 objections to extradition, even where general prison conditions remain concerning. The decision demonstrates courts' willingness to accept assurances from EU member states with established monitoring mechanisms, provided they contain sufficient specificity and objective basis for implementation.

Permission to appeal was refused, with Mr Justice Sweeting concluding the assurances adequately addressed material concerns about detention conditions and provided sufficient protection against Article 3 breaches.