2026 IEHC 280

THE HIGH COURT Record No. 2025 297 EXT [2026] IEHC 280 BETWEEN MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, HOME AFFAIRS AND MIGRATION APPLICANT AND NICOLAI-DORU BEGEAN RESPONDENT JUDGMENT delivered by Mr. Justice Sean Gillane on 6 May 2026 Introduction 1. This is an application for the surrender of the respondent to Norway (“the issuing state”) on foot of a warrant issued pursuant to the EU-Iceland Norway Agreement (“the warrant”). 2. The warrant was issued by an acting public prosecutor of the Oslo Public Prosecutor’s Office on the 10th of February 2022. Part B of the warrant indicates that the warrant was based on the decision of the Asker and Baerum District Court dated the 27th of June 2017 to issue a domestic arrest warrant. 3. The respondent was arrested on foot of an SIS alert and brought before this Court on the 16th of November 2025. He was thereafter remanded in custody and the warrant was produced to the Court on the 20th of November 2025. 4. Part A of the warrant states that the respondent is a Romanian national. 5. Part E of the warrant indicates that the respondent’s surrender was originally sought in respect of 28 criminal offences, divided into four numbered categories. By the time the matter came on for hearing before me, it was confirmed that the respondent’s surrender was now only being sought in respect of categories one and two and that categories three and four were no longer being pursued. 6. The offences, described as aggravated theft and attempted aggravated theft offences, are outlined at Part E of the warrant in the following terms: “I) In the period 29 October 2016 to 28 November 2016, on 21 occasions, he removed window frames from a number of residential homes and subsequently entered the homes through the window opening. From the homes he took jewellery, cash, watches, some documents, LP records, a baton and a pocketknife. II) On 5 occasions from 19 November 2016 to 23 November 2016 he removed window frames from residential homes for the purpose of entering the homes and taking an object or objects from them. He did not succeed in his endeavour.” 7. The warrant is a prosecution warrant. 2 8. The respondent objects to his surrender. A notice of objection was filed on the 19th of January 2026, pursuant to Order 98, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986. 9. The respondent contended that it had not been established that the issuing state intended to prosecute him for an offence to which the warrant relates or that he was the subject of a prosecution in that state for an offence to which the warrant relates. This argument was central to the submissions in the hearing before me and, as a result, a request for further information pursuant to section 20 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) was made. 10. The respondent contended that his surrender had previously been refused by Romania, a party to the EU-Iceland Norway Agreement, and that in the absence of evidence that there was a change of circumstances and/or that the issuing state had complied with its obligations to consider the proportionality of a further request for surrender, his surrender should be refused on that basis. 11. The respondent also contended that his surrender should be refused as the requirements of section 11(1A) of the 2003 Act had not been met and/or that correspondence and the minimum gravity requirements had not been satisfied under section 38 of the 2003 Act. Discussion 12. On the 10th of December 2025, further information was sought from the issuing judicial authority in relation to the circumstances in which the aggravated theft and the attempted aggravated theft offences were committed. 3 13. The additional information provided on the 5th of January 2026 indicated that there had been two other co-accused in the case. Those individuals were convicted on the 24th of May 2017. 14. The additional information included the judgment of the Asker and Baerum District Court dated the 24th of May 2017 which contained comprehensive details of the offending by the co-accused. The judgment recorded that the co-accused had explained that the role of the respondent was to drive to the relevant locations, wait in the car and take charge of the stolen items. On the day that they were arrested, there is a record of a text message sent by the respondent to the co-accused alerting them to the presence of the police. 15. The “indictment decision” containing the grounds for the charges against the coaccused was also provided. 16. A further document containing the charges proffered against the respondent by the Chief of Police for Oslo was provided. 17. The cover letter from the issuing judicial authority attaching the additional information stated that, in relation to the aggravated theft offences, the first 21 counts concern: “… aggravated theft from private homes. Various items have been removed from private homes, including jewelry, various household goods and/or cash. 4 The accused Begaen is charged with having participated in all of these counts. The police believe that the three persons committed these aggravated thefts together.” 18. In relation to the attempted aggravated theft offences, the letter stated that: “… the police refer to the aforementioned indictment ... These counts also concern attempted aggravated theft from private homes.” 19. The maximum penalty is stated to be six years imprisonment under the Norwegian Penal Code, subject to a statute of limitations of ten years. Attempts carry the same maximum penalty. 20. Counsel for the respondent argued during the course of the hearing that, on the basis of the available information, an intention to prosecute the respondent in the issuing state had not been established. Counsel’s submission at that stage was to the effect that the position was sufficiently unclear such that the Court should seek further information from the issuing state. 21. The statutory provisions in relation to the requirement to demonstrate an intention to prosecute have been the subject of substantial amendment, including the removal of a statutory presumption in relation to decisions relating to the prosecution of a requested person. 5 22. The applicable provision at the time of the receipt of the warrant was section 10 of the 2003 Act as substituted by section 4 of the European Arrest Warrant (Amendment) Act 2024. The relevant portion reads: “Where a judicial authority in an issuing state issues a relevant arrest warrant in respect of a person– (

1. a)whom that state intends to prosecute for an offence to which the relevant arrest warrant relates, (
2. b)who is the subject of a prosecution in that state for an offence to which the relevant arrest warrant relates … that person shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, be arrested and surrendered to the issuing state.” 23. This argument was advanced on a number of grounds on the basis of the available information at that time. 24. The respondent’s solicitor, Stephen O’Mahony, exhibited a report from a Romanian lawyer named Aldea Elena dated the 22nd of December 2025 and a judgment of the Suceava Court of Appeal in Romania dated the 10th of March 2022. 25. Ms. Elena said that an arrest warrant in respect of the respondent was previously executed in Romania, culminating in a judgment delivered by the Suceava Court of Appeal in which she represented the respondent. She stated that the result of the extradition procedure was that the extradition warrant had been rejected. She also stated that the respondent was currently being prosecuted in Romania for other offences. She expressed an opinion that: 6 “The European extradition warrant was issued based on the request of the Norwegian prosecutor for the investigation phase of some criminal acts potentially committed by Begean Doru Nicolai.” (Emphasis added.) 26. The above-mentioned judgment of the Suceava Court of Appeal noted that “a reply has been received from the foreign authorities” communicating that “the requested person is currently under investigation.” The court also noted that “the requested person is being investigated by the issuing authorities for committing” the offences set out in the warrant. 27. The judgment recorded that the court would “postpone the surrender of the requested person Begean Nicolai Doru until the final resolution of the criminal case” pending against him in Romania. The court stated that “the arrest warrant shall be enforced on the date on which the grounds that justified the postponement of surrender cease to exist.” 28. Counsel for the respondent also argued that it was significant that this respondent had not been indicted by the Asker and Baerum District Court (as was the position in respect of the other two co-accused) but was merely the subject of charges and that the warrant itself offered little to no information as to whether the court intended to try the respondent. 29. Counsel for the applicant submitted that there was a clear intention to prosecute and that the charges mirrored the indictment. He submitted that there could be no doubt on 7 this question as the face of the warrant contained a request that the respondent be “arrested and surrendered for criminal prosecution.” 30. It appeared to me that it was at least arguable that the above statement was part of a standard or prepopulated part of the warrant and the information put before the Court by the respondent was such that I was concerned and sought further information on the matters raised. 31. Further information was provided by the issuing authority on the 27th and the 30th of January 2026 in response to requests dated the 23rd and the 28th of January 2026 respectively. 32. The issuing judicial authority was provided with the exhibited report of Ms. Aldea and the judgment of the Suceava Court of Appeal. In its response dated the 27th of January 2026, the issuing judicial authority indicated that it was not “sufficiently aware” of the pending criminal case in Romania or the ruling of the Suceava Court of Appeal dated the 10th of March 2022. 33. The issuing judicial authority stated that the respondent “… remains under investigation in Norway of the offences set out in the arrest warrant, and the intended purpose of the surrender was the continuation of that investigation and to put Mr Begean to trial for these offences.” 34. However, the response concluded as follows: 8 “If the Romanian authorities confirm the aforementioned judicial decision, and also seek his extradition to carry out the criminal case in Romania, we request the Irish courts not to surrender Mr Begean to the Norwegian authorities.” (Emphasis in the original.) 35. A further request for information was made on the 28th of January 2026. 36. In light of the use of the phrase “under investigation”, the issuing judicial authority was asked to confirm that the purpose for which surrender was sought was to prosecute the respondent for the offences on the warrant. The issuing judicial authority was also asked whether it was aware of the prior ruling of the Suceava Court of Appeal and had any comments in relation to same, and to confirm whether the surrender of the requested person was still sought. 37. In its response dated the 30th of January 2026, the issuing judicial authority referred to its previous response dated the 27th of January 2026 and said: “As described in the aforementioned response letter, we no longer seek the surrender of the requested person due the premises we now have become sufficiently aware of, as we assume that Mr. Begean will be surrendered to the Romanian authorities.” 38. Arising out of that response, it was decided to seek further information by way of clarification, lest the issuing judicial authority be under a misconception in relation to the factual position of the case. That request for information, dated the 11th of February 2026, stated: 9 “The Romanian authorities have not sought the surrender by Ireland of the respondent in connection with the criminal case which is ongoing in Romania. That criminal case in Romania is ongoing and was recently adjourned to the 23rd March 2026. The court has received information that the requested person is not under any restrictive measures in relation to the Romanian proceedings. In these circumstances, the Irish High Court does not have the power to surrender the requested person to Romania in connection with the ongoing criminal proceedings there. If you withdraw your request for surrender, this will not mean that the requested person will be surrendered to Romania. Instead, he will be discharged from the proceedings in Ireland. We would be grateful if, in light of this information, you would please clarify whether you wish to withdraw your request to the Irish courts for the surrender of the requested person.” 39. A response dated the 13th of February 2026 stated: “The circumstances given in your last letter, that the Romanian authorities have not sought the surrender of Mr. Begean, and that he is not under any restrictive measures in relation to the Romanian proceedings, the Norwegian authorities confirm that the arrest warrant is valid, and that we still seek the surrender of Mr. Begean. He will be indicted in accordance with the arrest warrant and will be put to trial in Norway for these offences.” 10 40. Two further clarifications were sought from the issuing judicial authority on the 20th of February 2026: “(
3. a)Had a decision to put the requested person on trial been made at the time that the warrant was issued? (
4. b)Is your intention to put the requested person on trial for these offences conditional on the continuing investigation producing further evidence?” 41. By response dated the 23rd of February 2026, the issuing judicial authority confirmed that the answer to the first question was yes. Further, it confirmed that: “Mr. Begean will be put on trial in Norway, and the indictment is dated 16th February 2026. There is no need for further investigation.” 42. At the initial hearing, there was some disagreement between the parties as to whether the surrender of the respondent had in fact been previously refused in Romania. At the final resumed hearing on the 22nd of April 2026, the respondent produced a translated copy of an Order of the Suceava Court of Appeal which showed that the surrender of the respondent had been postponed until the resolution of criminal proceedings against him bearing case file number 2780/86/2024 which is: “… on the docket of the Suceava Tribunal in the judicial investigation phase and has a trial date of April 20, 2026.” Decision 43. Notwithstanding the level of uncertainty in relation to the intentions of the issuing judicial authority arising from the initial request, it is now beyond doubt, having regard 11 to the responses to the requests for further information, that the intention of the issuing judicial authority is to prosecute the respondent and put him on trial in Norway and that his surrender is not being sought for continued investigation or any other purpose. 44. It is also clear that any pending proceedings in Romania cannot operate as a bar to the surrender of the respondent to Norway and that there was no relevant refusal on the merits by the Romanian courts of a request for the surrender of the respondent to Norway. I am satisfied that a postponement in the Romanian courts does not operate as an impediment to the request from the issuing judicial authority before this Court where it is clear from the information now available that the request is being maintained. 45. I am satisfied that the detail in Part E of the warrant in relation to the circumstances in which the offences were alleged to have been committed, combined with the further information provided pursuant to the section 20 requests, meet the requirements of section 11(1A)(
5. f)which provides: “the circumstances in which the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed, including the time and place of its commission or alleged commission, and the degree of involvement or alleged degree of involvement of the person in the commission of the offence.” 46. In that regard, the objectives identified by Edwards J. in Minister for Justice and Equality v. Cahill [2012] IEHC 315 are clearly met. These are to enable the High Court to be satisfied that it is appropriate to endorse the warrant; to allow for correspondence (where required) to be established; and to enable the respondent to know precisely for what it is that his surrender is sought. 12 47. The classification of the offences under the law of the issuing state is clearly set out in Part E of the warrant. 48. The potential penalty is identified as one of a sentence of six years imprisonment, meeting the requirements of section 11(1A)(
6. g)of the 2003 Act and satisfying the requirements of minimum gravity. Correspondence is also satisfied as the description of the offences at Part E of the warrant correspond with the offences of burglary and theft (and/or attempts to commit same) as set out in the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences Act) 2001. 49. I am satisfied that the provisions of section 16