Extradition Lawyer in Bucharest: Curtea de Apel București and the Local Procedure

A European Arrest Warrant (EAW) from another EU Member State is a separate judicial surrender mechanism under Title III of Law No. 302/2004, not traditional extradition under Title II. For country-wide law and refusal grounds, see Extradition from Romania and the guide to refusal grounds and appeals. If an EAW is being executed against a person found within this court-of-appeal district, the competent court of appeal also handles the judicial surrender stage under Title III; confirm the actual venue and file from the notice or court record.

Which Bucharest court and prosecutor handle the first steps?

Article 42(1) assigns passive extradition to the court of appeal in whose district the person is located and to the prosecutor’s office attached to it. Article 42(3) says one judge of the competent court’s criminal section decides the provisional-arrest and extradition requests; it does not guarantee a permanent Section I or Section II assignment for every file.

Why might the Bucharest prosecutor receive a request when the person’s location is unknown?

Article 40 makes the Prosecutor’s Office attached to Curtea de Apel București the routing point for a formal extradition request when the person’s location is unknown. This is a prosecutor-routing rule; by itself, it does not make the Bucharest court competent once the person is located. Ordinarily, Article 42(1) places the case in the court-of-appeal district where the person is found. A separate exception applies only when the requesting state seeks extradition at the same time of two or more people investigated in the same criminal case or connected cases and located in different court-of-appeal districts: Article 42(2) assigns those requests to Curtea de Apel București. In that specific linked-case exception, Article 43 allows a videoconference hearing before the Bucharest court, and the local prosecutor’s file is sent to the Bucharest prosecutor after the person has been heard.

The unknown-location rule is only a routing rule for the prosecutor; once the person is located, venue normally follows that location unless the simultaneous linked-case exception above applies. If the person is found in Brașov, check the Brașov court page; for Cluj-Napoca, check the Cluj-Napoca court page.

The first 72 hours: a practical action plan, not a statutory deadline

This is a practical checklist, not a legal 72-hour limit. Different periods start at different events; counsel should identify the instrument, custody basis and decision dates.

How long can custody last, and which decisions can be challenged?

Article 43(3) caps provisional extradition arrest pending surrender at 180 days. The court reviews continued arrest at intervals no longer than 30 days and may replace it with house arrest, judicial control or bail in a well-justified case if it considers the person will not abscond. Neither period guarantees release if another lawful custody basis applies. This review power concerns replacing an existing arrest measure; it does not guarantee a non-custodial measure at the outset. In Decision No. 332/2022 of 26 May 2022, the Romanian Constitutional Court rejected as inadmissible a challenge asking it to add an express power to order other preventive measures at the initial stage; it did not decide the merits of that request.

Before the full request arrives, Article 44 allows urgent provisional arrest. An INTERPOL Red Notice or diffusion can count as a provisional-arrest request if the applicable treaty expressly provides for it or reciprocity exists. The statute also contains specific exceptions: Article 44(3) bars arrest on that basis for people covered by Article 19, while Article 44(2) allows the notice to be treated as a request despite lack of reciprocity where necessary to combat serious crime. Article 44(8) sets a 40-day maximum unless the treaty provides longer. A Red Notice is not a final extradition decision; release does not decide a later request.

Keep the challenges separate. A challenge to an order imposing, maintaining, replacing or ending provisional extradition arrest must be filed within 48 hours of pronouncement; it is heard within five days of registration. Article 43(9) separately requires forwarding the file within 48 hours; it does not state a separate starting event for that forwarding period, so counsel should check the procedural timestamps in the record. For an order made by Curtea de Apel București, the higher court is the High Court of Cassation and Justice. A challenge to an order imposing or maintaining arrest does not suspend that measure (Article 43(9)). A challenge to the extradition judgment is different: the person and competent prosecutor have five days from pronouncement to challenge it before the Criminal Section of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (Articles 52(8), 53). The High Court hears it within at most 10 days, in a three-judge panel. A challenge to a judgment granting extradition suspends execution of surrender, but not provisional arrest.

An EAW has its own route under Articles 109–111 and must not be treated as a third-country extradition appeal. Under Article 110, the surrender judgment may be challenged within five days from pronouncement unless the person consented to surrender, in which case the judgment is final. Article 110 also requires the file to be forwarded to the higher court within 24 hours; counsel should confirm the operative start from the case record. A challenge to a judgment ordering surrender suspends surrender but not the detention measure; certain interim orders have a separate 24-hour challenge deadline. The challenge is heard as a priority within at most three days of registration (Article 111). The person has a right to counsel and to a free interpreter if they do not understand or speak Romanian, and to be informed in a language they understand. The EAW must be communicated in a language they understand and, where applicable, so must a conviction judgment delivered in absentia. Counsel should check the operative decision immediately.

What does the Bucharest court decide?

In traditional extradition, the court checks legal conditions; Article 52(2) excludes a review of the merits of the foreign prosecution or conviction and the desirability of extradition. The Ministry of Justice handles central-authority communications, not a second judicial hearing. Immigration removal or deportation is a different route, so ask which actual order or instrument applies.

The European Convention on Extradition and its protocols apply where relevant; the EAW framework applies between EU Member States. Romania’s treaty record contains EAW and other country-specific declarations, so check the instrument for the requesting state. Consent to extradition and waiver of speciality are distinct: Article 47 allows separate consideration of speciality. Do not sign either without advice on its effect. Detailed refusal grounds and remedies belong in the separate refusal-and-appeal guide.

What should the family and foreign lawyer prepare?

• Full name, date of birth, citizenship, passport details and spelling variants in foreign documents.
• Arrest date, exact place (including whether it was OTP/Otopeni), police unit, detention facility and written custody order.
• Every document received: EAW, Red Notice reference, provisional-arrest request, foreign warrant, judgment or Romanian court order.
• Contact details for Romanian counsel and, where needed, counsel in the requesting state. Coordinate advice without delaying a Romanian deadline.
• Urgent medical needs, medication, disability or language needs, supported by concise records and delivered lawfully through counsel.
• A timeline of notifications, interviews, hearings, decisions and receipt dates to distinguish the 24-hour detention limit, 48-hour arrest challenge, eight-day opposition period and five-day judgment challenge.
• Before arranging a visit, confirm the actual custody centre and its current rules. Public oversight material documents more than one Bucharest police centre; the city name alone does not identify the facility.

A hypothetical Bucharest example

Hypothetical: a Georgian citizen is stopped at Henri Coandă Airport after a Red Notice requested by a non-EU state. The family should ask what legal basis the police recorded, whether Article 44 treats the notice as a provisional-arrest request, which prosecutor received the file, where the person is held and whether the court has been asked to order provisional arrest. Counsel then checks the treaty relationship, formal papers and deadlines. If the alert is instead an EAW from an EU Member State, the separate surrender procedure applies.

How to check the hearing and submit documents

The court portal lists separate registries for its criminal sections and says its general public-information mailbox is not a filing channel for pending cases. Confirm the assigned section, current filing channel, hearing room and access arrangements against the summons or directly with the registry. Published public-facing hours are administrative hours, not extensions of statutory deadlines. If the person is in police custody, confirm the exact facility before planning a visit.

The site’s team coordinates cross-border defence with local counsel. To ask about coordination, use the request page; an enquiry does not replace a deadline-sensitive filing with the competent Romanian authority.