if the defendant has agreed to a simplified extradition procedure

Extradition lawyer on extradition to Romania

In an order dated August 6, 2018 (- 1 AR 296/18 -), the Munich Higher Regional Court emphasised that the Higher Regional Courts in extradition proceedings are obliged to review the conditions of detention in the requesting state, even if the persecuted person has agreed to a simplified extradition procedure.

The Munich Higher Regional Court was clearly guided by the case law of the European Court of Justice in case C-220/18 (extradition to Romania). A review of the detention conditions in Europe will have to be carried out above all in the case of extradition requests from Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary.

In its decision of 25.07.2018 (C-220/18), the European Court of Justice clarified that in the event of a considerable risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Art. 4 ECHR, the courts deciding on the extradition procedure are obliged to examine of the conditions of detention in the detention centres to which the persecuted person will probably be transferred after his extradition.

... even if the defendant has agreed to a simplified extradition procedure

In my view, it is to emphasize, that the Higher Regional Court of Munich in its decision of August 6, 2018 expressly linked its own obligation to review the conditions of detention in the requesting state to its own knowledge of Romanian conditions of detention "from previous extradition proceedings".

This actually means that the review of the conditions of detention must also begin if, for example, the persecuted person – for example because he is not represented by a lawyer - cannot explain anything on the conditions of detention in the target state in the extradition proceedings himself. Normally, the defendant is required to describe in detail the poor detention conditions in the target state before the court even examines them. Whether the Higher Regional Court of Munich and other higher regional courts actually want to draw this conclusion - that the court's own knowledge from other cases leads to the duty to examine - is anything but certain.