Overview
Romania is an EU member state and part of the European Arrest Warrant system. The legal basis is Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and Sections 78 ff. IRG. In terms of volume, Romania is a significant partner in Germany's EAW traffic.
The central point of review in Romania cases is detention conditions. The ECJ precedent Aranyosi/Căldăraru (C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU) concerned Romania among others and established the two-stage review framework for detention conditions in EAW traffic. The ECtHR pilot judgment Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania (25 Apr 2017) found structural overcrowding.
Since then Romania has carried out reforms, yet the case-by-case review of detention conditions remains relevant in practice. Since 2024 Romania has also been a full Schengen member; extradition traffic is unaffected in substance, but its practical handling has been simplified.
Legal basis
Extradition to Romania is governed primarily by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, transposed in the Eighth Part of the IRG (Sections 78 ff. IRG). On the Romanian side, Law No. 302/2004 on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters applies, most recently amended.
On the German side, the Higher Regional Courts are competent in the admissibility proceedings (Section 29 IRG); the granting decision is made by the General Public Prosecutor's Office (Section 79(2) IRG). On the Romanian side, the courts of appeal (Curți de Apel) decide on the issuance and execution of warrants; the court of review is the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție.
For German citizens, Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG applies. Where the offense relates purely to a domestic connection, extradition is generally inadmissible.
Country-specific issues in Romania
Detention conditions (ECJ Aranyosi/Căldăraru, C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU; ECtHR Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, 61467/12 and others, 25 Apr 2017): In the pilot judgment Rezmiveș, the ECtHR found structural overcrowding and material deficiencies in Romanian prisons and set Romania a deadline to remedy them. In parallel, the ECJ established the two-stage review framework in Aranyosi. As a consequence, German Higher Regional Courts have repeatedly required detention-conditions assurances.
Reforms: Romania has taken measures since 2017 (renovation and construction of facilities, alternative sanctions, reopening of proceedings for affected persons). The situation has improved in places, while structural problems persist in individual facilities.
Dual criminality: Outside the list catalogue of Article 2(2) of the EAW Framework Decision, a substantive review applies.
Judgments in absentia: Where convictions were handed down in contumacia, an assurance of a retrial under Section 83 IRG is required.
Rule of law: Romania was subject to the CVM procedure (until 2023) and the general EU rule-of-law monitoring; systemic deficiencies within the meaning of L and P are not currently assumed.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
Until the pilot judgment Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania (2017), detention conditions in Romanian prisons were structurally marked by considerable overcrowding — at times well below the ECtHR minimum threshold of 3 m² per detainee (Muršić v. Croatia). Since then Romania has carried out reforms — new buildings, alternative sanctions, the possibility of reopening proceedings for persons already in detention under Law 169/2017 (Legea recursului compensatoriu, since reformed).
The situation has improved in places; individual facilities and regions remain critical. In its follow-up reports the CPT has acknowledged progress but has continued to find deficiencies.
Under German case law, a concrete detention-conditions assurance must regularly be obtained in Romania EAW cases (BVerfG 2 BvR 424/17 on the Romania question). The Romanian authorities are cooperative; the assurances must be reviewed for their reliability (cell floor space, facility, period).
Lines of defense
The defense in Romania EAW cases follows a markedly detention-conditions-oriented pattern:
- Aranyosi/Căldăraru (detention conditions): a two-stage review — a general finding of systemic deficiencies (in principle affirmed by Rezmiveș and Others), then an individual review of the facility specifically envisaged. Cell floor space (Muršić v. Croatia: 3 m²), occupancy density, hygiene, medical care.
- BVerfG 2 BvR 424/17: the constitutional classification of the detention-conditions review in EAW proceedings.
- Section 80 IRG (extradition of Germans): review of the connection to the place of the offense and the assurance of return.
- Section 81 IRG (dual criminality): a substantive review outside the list catalogue.
- Section 83 IRG (judgments in absentia): assurance of a retrial where there has been no summons.
- Rule of specialty (Section 83h IRG): limitation of prosecution to the offenses granted.
- Assurance regarding the specific prison: standard submission — facility, cell floor space, occupancy, duration. Assurances from the Romanian judicial authorities must be reviewed for reliability.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): where the OLG's assessment of detention conditions is incorrect.
Legal representation in Romanian extradition proceedings
An extradition case is a specialized mutual-legal-assistance procedure that goes beyond classic criminal defense. Engaging a defense lawyer specialized in extradition law at an early stage is regularly decisive — not only after the formal extradition arrest warrant has been issued, but already from the moment of an arrest based on an Interpol notice, an SIS alert or a European Arrest Warrant.
As a Certified Specialist in Criminal Law with a focus on extradition law, I advise and represent affected persons nationwide before the competent Higher Regional Courts and in constitutional complaint proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court.