Lead
Over the last two decades, courts across the EU have refused to give effect to Romanian criminal judgments—most commonly by declining European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) or blocking extradition / sentence execution—invoking risks related to detention conditions, the absence of unconditional retrial guarantees in in absentia convictions, or misuse of cooperation channels. Below are public, verifiable examples with the deciding court, date, outcome, and decisive ground, followed by CJEU/ECHR landmarks that shape these outcomes.
12 public refusals (or standstills)—at a glance
1) Netherlands — Rechtbank Amsterdam, 18 October 2018 (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:8944)
Outcome: surrender to Romania refused.
Ground: real risk of inhuman/degrading treatment, especially personal space below the 3 m² threshold and other detention-condition concerns; assurances did not dispel the risk.
2) Germany — Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), 1 and 30 December 2020
Outcome: constitutional complaints against surrender to Romania upheld; stricter re-assessment ordered.
Ground: duty of an individualised detention-conditions assessment, in line with Aranyosi/Căldăraru and Dorobanțu.
3) United Kingdom — High Court, 29 April 2021 (Iancu)
Outcome: refusal of extradition to Romania upheld.
Ground: detention conditions found inhuman/degrading; confirmation of discharge ordered by the lower court.
4) United Kingdom — Supreme Court, 7 October 2024 (Merticariu v Judecătoria Arad)
Outcome: extradition order quashed; appellant discharged.
Ground: for in absentia convictions, the right to retrial must be unconditional; it is insufficient if retrial depends on proving later that absence was not deliberate.
5) Belgium — Courts of Appeal (the “AR” and “HL” lines), 18 January 2024 → preliminary references; CJEU judgment 10 July 2025
Outcome: refusals to execute EAWs (including Romania’s) for sentence execution; questions sent to CJEU.
Ground: serious individual risk to fundamental rights in the issuing state’s prisons.
6) Italy — consistent case-law (e.g., Cass. pen., 31 October 2016; later practice)
Outcome: blocking surrender to Romania absent effective detention assurances; consolidation of a practical 3 m² filter.
Ground: Article 3 ECHR risk and insufficiency of assurances; strict review of personal space/conditions.
7) Italy — Courts of Appeal & CJEU impact, 4 September 2025 (C-305/22, Grand Chamber)
Outcome (context): some courts opted to recognise and execute the Romanian sentence in Italy (FD 2008/909) instead of surrender; the CJEU held that non-execution of an EAW to execute the sentence domestically is allowed only if the specific transfer/recognition procedures are followed—no unilateral substitution of the EAW.
Ground: primacy of the EAW and strict conditions for “home execution” without the issuing state’s consent.
8) Cyprus — Court of Appeal, 3 November 2023 (Steinmetz)
Outcome: refusal of extradition to Romania; immediate release.
Ground: risk of inhuman/degrading treatment in detention; adequacy of assurances.
9) Greece — Areios Pagos (Supreme Court), 5 March 2025 (Steinmetz)
Outcome: annulment of the earlier extradition order; release.
Ground: reinforced evaluation of risk and regularity of Romanian requests.
10) Ireland (reference to Northern Ireland practice) — High Court, 15 December 2020
Outcome: the court records that on the same EAW, the Northern Ireland court (15 February 2019) had refused surrender to Romania over detention-condition concerns and insufficient assurances.
Ground: Article 3 ECHR risk; cited as relevant prior practice.
11) France — ECHR follow-through (Bivolaru & Moldovan v France, 25 March 2021)
Outcome (ECHR): violation of Article 3 where French courts ordered surrender without a sufficiently rigorous risk assessment for Romanian detention.
Practical effect: raised national thresholds across the EU and fuelled later refusals in similar fact patterns.
12) Germany — the Dorobanțu context (CJEU, 15 October 2019, C-128/18)
Outcome (CJEU): executing courts must seek individualised assurances (destination facility, cell size/floor space, living conditions); mutual trust does not displace this duty.
Practical effect: justified tighter national filters when surrender to Romania is sought.
What patterns emerge (“why courts refuse”)
- Detention conditions (Art. 3 ECHR / Art. 4 Charter): personal space below 3 m², overcrowding, medical access, hygiene—without individualised, verifiable assurances (named facility, floor space, regime, monitoring) surrender is refused or delayed. The standard stems from Aranyosi/Căldăraru and is fleshed out in Dorobanțu; it is visible in NL, DE, UK, IT, BE, CY, GR decisions.
- In absentia and the right to retrial: where retrial is not unconditional, courts refuse surrender. Merticariu (UKSC, 2024) is a major benchmark for common-law courts and resonates across the EU through ECHR/Charter reasoning.
- Substituting surrender with home execution: after C-305/22 (CJEU, 2025), executing the sentence locally without following the dedicated recognition/transfer track (FD 2008/909) and without proper consent cannot replace the EAW—any refusal must be legally framed within the correct instrument.
- Generic vs. individualised assurances: boilerplate statements (“conditions meet standard X”) no longer suffice; courts demand facility-specific, checkable data, or they refuse. This is apparent in UK/IT/NL practice and in Belgian cases escalated to the CJEU.
What these refusals mean in practice for Romania-linked cases
- For the defence:
- Demand individual assurances from the outset: exact penitentiary, floor space in m², regime (semi-open/closed), healthcare access; attach verifiable proof and propose post-surrender monitoring.
- In in absentia convictions, show that retrial does not hinge on proving non-deliberate absence; if it does, plead Merticariu.
- If a court tends to “execute locally,” recall C-305/22: that path is possible only via FD 2008/909 (no EAW bypass).
- For Romanian issuing authorities:
- Avoid incomplete certificates; offer Dorobanțu-grade assurances (floor plans/metrics, named facility, standardised layouts, healthcare protocols) and update them if execution is postponed.
- For in absentia judgments, provide explicit, unconditional retrial guarantees, aligned with EU law and ECHR/UKSC standards.
- If domestic execution abroad is envisaged, use FD 2008/909 properly; do not “substitute” the EAW.
Case-law anchors that set today’s bar
- CJEU – Dorobanțu (C-128/18, 15 Oct 2019): requires individualised detention assurances within the EAW system; abstract mutual trust is insufficient.
- ECHR – Bivolaru & Moldovan v France (25 Mar 2021): violation of Art. 3 for surrender without a rigorous, case-specific risk assessment; a practical “bar-raiser” across EU courts.
- CJEU – C-305/22 (4 Sep 2025): executing at home instead of surrender is allowed only via the special recognition/transfer mechanism (FD 2008/909), not as a workaround to the EAW.
Operational conclusion
“Mutual recognition” is not automatic where Romanian criminal judgments are concerned. Refusals from NL, DE, UK, IT, BE, CY, and GR confirm that fundamental-rights standards (Art. 3 ECHR / Art. 4 Charter) and effective retrial guarantees carry decisive weight. The practical recipe: technical proof, individualised assurances, the right instrument (EAW vs. FD 2008/909), and flawless certification. Otherwise, refusal remains likely and the Romanian criminal judgment may have no cross-border effect in the requested state.