Zlatko Petrov v Regional Court in Sofia, Bulgaria

Mr Justice Sweeting: Introduction

1. This is an application by Mr Zlatko Petrov (“the Applicant”) for permission to appeal, pursuant to Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the Act”), against the decision of District Judge Leake on 16 December 2024 to order his extradition to Bulgaria. Procedural Background

2. The Applicant is the subject of an extradition request from Bulgaria under Part 1 of the Act, based upon a conviction warrant issued on 17 June 2022 for an offence of theft committed on 14 September 2016, for which he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Following his arrest on 29 March 2023, the Applicant did not consent to extradition, and a hearing took place before District Judge Leake on 16 November 2023.

3. The District Judge subsequently required further information from the Respondent in relation to prison conditions, approving a request for further information (“RFFI”) which was sent on 13 September 2024. A second prison assurance was received on 11 October 2024. On 16 December 2024, the District Judge ordered the Applicant’s extradition. The Ground of Appeal

4. The Applicant raises a sole ground of appeal, contending that there is a real risk his Article 3 rights will be breached due to prison conditions in Bulgaria, notwithstanding the assurances provided. The gravamen of the Applicant’s case is that the material conditions at the old block in Sofia Prison (“the old block”) or the Kremikovtsi prison hostel (“Kremikovtsi”) are such as to give rise to a real risk of a breach of his Article 3 rights. The Law in relation to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

5. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) provides that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. To rely upon Article 3, an applicant must demonstrate: “substantial grounds for believing that a person, if returned, faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. As Lord Bingham stated in R (Ullah) v Special Immigration Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323, at [24], “real risk” signifies something “more than fanciful”.

6. It is well established that the presumption of compliance has been rebutted in relation to Bulgaria following the ECtHR pilot judgment in Neshkov v Bulgaria (27 January 2015). Consequently, assurances are required in relation to conditions of detention.

7. The evaluation of such assurances must consider the importance of the principle of mutual trust between States, as affirmed in Zabolotnyi v Mareszalka District Court, Hungary [2021] UKSC 14 at [31-34]. The criteria for evaluating assurances, as set out by Mitting J in BB v Secretary of State for the Home Department, SC/39/2005,quoted by the Divisional Court in Sunca v Iasi Court of Law and others [2016] EWHC 2786 (Admin),approved by the Court of Appeal and consistent with Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1 at [189], dictate four general conditions: i) If fulfilled, the person will not be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3; ii) The assurances must be given in good faith; iii) There must be a sound objective basis for believing they will be fulfilled; and iv) Fulfilment must be capable of being verified.

8. In Georgiev and Others v Regional Prosecutor’s Office, Shuman, Bulgaria [2018] EWHC 359 (Admin), at [61], the Divisional Court observed that Bulgarian assurances, given its status as a signatory to the ECHR and an EU Member State, “must be accepted unless there is cogent reason to believe they will not be honoured”. It is noteworthy that there has been no suggestion that Bulgaria has a history of failing to fulfil bilateral extradition assurances. Consideration of the Assurances and Alleged Deficiencies

9. The District Judge correctly acknowledged, at [96] of his judgment, that there would be a real risk of an Article 3 breach if the Applicant were detained in the old block or Kremikovtsi. The crux of the proposed appeal lies in whether the second assurance adequately addresses these concerns.

10. Two assurances were provided by the Respondent. The first assurance, dated 16 May 2023, confirmed that the Applicant would be held in the Sofia Prison main building, the Prison Hospital, or one of its prison hostels (Kremikovtsi or Kazichene), in conditions complying with minimum international standards, with a minimum living area of at least four-square metres per prisoner, excluding sanitary facilities, and access to toilet facilities and running water. It further specified that under Article 62(5) of the Implementation of Penal Sanctions and Detentions in Custody Act (“IPSDCA”), a transfer to another prison is legally possible if conditions are not met.

11. The second assurance, dated 20 September 2024, provided further detail, stating that daily repairs have been carried out to improve prisoner conditions, and since 2022, a completely renovated group exists in Sofia Prison. It also detailed facilities such as standard sinks, toilets, and showers with hot and cold water, direct access to daylight and natural ventilation, daily outdoor time, and measures taken in relation to pest control, including new pest-deterrent mattresses. It also clarified that dormitory hygiene is a prisoner’s duty, with administration providing cleaning products.

12. The Applicant contended that the second assurance failed to confirm that he would not be detained in the old block or Kremikovtsi, or to properly set out how conditions there have improved. He argued that references to “daily repairs” and a “completely renovated group” were too vague to satisfy the Othman criteria, and that other parts of the assurance were similarly unclear or did not address the serious issues raised in the 2022 CPT report.

13. The Applicant maintains that Question 5 of the RFFI in this case mirrors [(f)] of the request made in Vangelov v Bulgaria (No. 2) [2021] EWHC 427 (Admin), and that the Respondent has similarly failed to provide the specific assurances sought.

14. However, there is a material distinction in the assurances provided in this case. The Respondent points to the first assurance, which explicitly guarantees a minimum living area of four-square metres and constant access to sanitary facilities. This is in contrast to the situation in Vangelov, where the assurance for the relevant detention location indicated that sanitary units were located outside the cells, in the corridor.

15. Consequently, the present case is distinguishable by an initial assurance that contains explicit guarantees concerning personal space and access to sanitary facilities, aspects which were found to be either absent or inadequate in Vangelov in relation to the specific circumstances of that appellant’s prospective detention.

16. While the Applicant highlights the “scathing criticism” in the 2022 CPT report, the Respondent correctly points out that the problems detailed did not affect the entirety of the prison estate. The assurance dated May 2023 explicitly guarantees four-square metres of living space, not including sanitary facilities, with standard furniture and constant access to toilet and running water. This specific detail, alongside the September 2024 assurance, provides a comprehensive picture.

17. I note that the Respondent’s submissions highlight the existence of accommodation within Sofia Prison, such as Group 7 and the ‘new part’ of Kremikovtsi, which offers decent material conditions, suggesting an objective basis for the assurance being upheld. Moreover, the September 2024 assurance explicitly states that “daily repairs” have been carried out and that a “completely renovated group” exists in Sofia. It is not for the assurances to detail every single criticism found in a CPT report; rather, the terms must be such that, if fulfilled, Article 3 is not breached. As the court commented in Kirchanov v Bulgarian Judicial Authority [2017] EWHC 827 (Admin) at [27], certain issues may not necessitate specific inclusion in an assurance if they do not directly relate to a potential breach of Article

3.

18. The Applicant also argued that the RFFI’s requests in relation to monitoring and specific assurances for minimum standards upon transfer (Q4, Q5a, Q5b) were not provided. However, the second assurance refers to Article 62(5) of the Implementation of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act (“IPSDCA”) in relation to transfers and minimum personal space. The Respondent also pointed out that Article 62(5) of the IPSDCA, whilst related to overcrowding, provides a legal mechanism for transfer if conditions are not met, which goes towards the practical implementation of the assurance.

19. In relation to the location of detention, the first assurance clearly states that the Applicant may be held in the Sofia Prison main building, its hospital, or Kremikovtsi or Kazichene hostels. The second assurance, while noting that the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation determines the initial place of accommodation, does not contradict this, and indeed goes on to provide information specifically “for the prison in the city of Sofia and its subsidiaries”. The District Judge was entitled to find that this clarified the intended place of detention.

20. The Respondent correctly asserts that Bulgaria allows the CPT to visit its prisons, and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee also monitors prisons, thus providing mechanisms for verification of assurances. There is no evidence that these assurances have been breached in the past, or that there is a cogent reason to believe they will not be honoured in this instance.

21. I consider that it is not arguable that the District Judge was wrong to conclude that the further assurance properly addressed the concerns raised in the 2022 CPT report. The District Judge did not agree that the response failed to make clear where the Applicant would be detained, finding it consistent with the first assurance that detention would be in the Sofia Prison main building, Prison Hospital, or one of its hostels; a conclusion which was plainly open to him. Conclusion

22. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the District Judge was not arguably incorrect in concluding that the assurances provided by the Respondent were adequate to dispel the real risk of a breach of the Applicant’s Article 3 rights. The assurances, read together, provide sufficient detail in relation to the conditions of detention and address the material concerns raised. Consequently, the Applicant has not demonstrated arguably substantial grounds for believing that he would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if extradited.

23. Permission to appeal is therefore refused. END