Eliza Dumitrescu - Our Team

Romania v PV – Successfully represented the Requested Person before Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The District Judge discharged the client after finding that the European Arrest Warrant did not satisfy the requirements of section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003.

Romania v CC – Successfully represented the Appellant before the High Court. Mr Justice Swift allowed the appeal under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 concerning a fraud conviction.

Romania v AV – Successfully challenged the validity of a European Arrest Warrant before Westminster Magistrates’ Court, resulting in the Requested Person’s discharge.

Romania v AP – Successfully represented the Appellant before the High Court. Mr Justice Kerr allowed the appeal under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 on Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights (right to family life).

R v AA – Successfully appealed against sentence before the Court of Appeal. The Court reduced the client’s sentence for an immigration offence from 24 months’ imprisonment to 16 months after finding the original sentence manifestly excessive.

Eliza has also acted in the following reported High Court extradition cases, which raised points of law:

Tobosaru v Court of Law Craiova, Romania [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin) – Acted, with leading counsel, for two Appellants whose appeals were heard together. The case examined whether, where extradition is sought to serve a single merged sentence, the four-month threshold in section 65(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 applies to the overall sentence or to the sentences for the individual offences, and whether the decision in Pilecki remains good law following Assange. The High Court held that Pilecki establishes a principle of general application, so that it is sufficient that the overall sentence is at least four months, and dismissed the appeals, including on Article 8.

Lupsa v Timis Court, Romania [2026] EWHC 1389 (Admin) – Represented the Appellant in an appeal concerning when a person convicted in his absence has “deliberately absented himself” from trial following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bertino and Merticariu, and in particular whether a formal warning that the trial may proceed in his absence is required. The High Court upheld the District Judge’s finding of deliberate absence on the evidence that he knew of the proceedings, and dismissed the appeal.

Mitroi v Bucharest Court, Romania [2025] EWHC 3152 (Admin) – Represented the Appellant, instructing leading counsel, in an appeal under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 following a six-year gap between the discharge of an earlier warrant and the issue of a replacement warrant under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The High Court held that he remained a fugitive notwithstanding the discharge of the first warrant, found that the balance fell decisively in favour of extradition and dismissed the appeal.

Stefan v Urziceni District Court, Romania [2025] EWHC 2236 (Admin) – Acted for the Applicant on a renewed application for permission to appeal which raised the question whether the activation of a suspended sentence is a “trial resulting in the decision” for the purposes of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. The High Court held that section 20 is not engaged by non-attendance at a hearing concerned solely with the execution of a suspended sentence where the original conviction is final, and refused permission.

Ciorici and Others v Government of Moldova [2025] EWHC 809 (Admin) – Acted, with leading counsel, for the third of three Appellants in a Divisional Court appeal against extradition to Moldova. The case examined whether detention in Moldovan prisons, and in particular the risk of inter-prisoner violence, would expose the Appellants to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, and whether the detailed assurances given by the Moldovan authorities could be relied upon. The Court held that the assurances could be relied upon and dismissed the appeals, together with renewed applications for permission to appeal on Article 8 and dual criminality.

Dimin v Alba Iulia Court of Law, Romania [2025] EWHC 768 (Admin) – Represented the Appellant, who had been convicted in his absence, in an appeal applying the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bertino and Merticariu on trial in absence under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. The High Court indicated that he would not have been found to be entitled to a retrial for the purposes of section 20(5), but concluded that he had knowingly and intelligently relinquished his right to be present at his trial. The appeal, which also raised Article 8, was dismissed.

Todirica v Pascani Court of Law, Romania [2024] EWHC 3113 (Admin) – Represented the Appellant, whose extradition was sought to serve 320 days’ imprisonment imposed when an unpaid fine for driving offences was converted into a custodial sentence. The appeal raised the question whether the hearing at which the fine was converted was a “trial” for the purposes of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. The High Court held that it was not, the conversion being essentially a mathematical exercise, and dismissed the appeal.

Banica v Pogoanele District Court, Romania [2023] EWHC 405 (Admin) – Represented the Appellant in an appeal which examined whether the proportionality provision in Article 597 of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement requires stricter scrutiny of extradition requests than applied under the European Arrest Warrant scheme. The High Court held that Article 597 does not prescribe anything which the Article 8 balancing exercise would fail to deliver, and dismissed the appeal.

Grecu v Gorj County Court, Romania [2022] EWHC 2056 (Admin) – Represented the Appellant in an appeal raising the question of the legal test to be applied where extradition is resisted under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of slavery and forced labour), together with Article 8. The High Court considered the competing formulations of the Article 4 test, found that neither was satisfied on the facts and dismissed the appeal.

Troka v Government of Albania [2021] EWHC 3424 (Admin) – Acted for the Applicant on an application to reopen a concluded extradition appeal on the basis of expert evidence that the limitation period for enforcing his sentence under Albanian law had expired. The High Court held that the courts’ reluctance to adjudicate on disputed questions of a requesting state’s limitation rules applies equally on an application to reopen, and that the strict criteria in Criminal Procedure Rule 50.27 were not met.

Magyar v Budapest Environs Court, Hungary [2021] EWHC 2402 (Admin) – Represented the Appellant in an Article 3 challenge to extradition based on prison conditions in Hungary, which had been stayed behind the test case of Zabolotnyi. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in that case, the High Court held that the assurance given by the Hungarian Ministry of Justice guaranteeing minimum personal space in detention could be relied upon, and dismissed the appeal. The start of the removal period was deferred so that a further argument concerning the rule of law in Hungary could, if appropriate, be pursued by an application to reopen.

Verde v Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another [2020] EWHC 1219 (Admin) – Acted, with leading counsel, for the Applicant in a habeas corpus application which followed Cosar and concerned detention pending extradition to the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case examined whether the start of the period for removal may lawfully be postponed more than once under section 47 of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether a requested person is entitled to notice and a hearing before a postponement is agreed. The High Court held that the detention was lawful and that there is no such entitlement, while observing that it is good practice to inform the requested person of any agreement reached. The application was dismissed.

Cosar v HMP Wandsworth and Others [2020] EWHC 1142 (Admin) – Acted, with leading counsel, for two requested persons, one Romanian and one Polish, in a Divisional Court challenge to the lawfulness of their continued detention when removal could not take place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case examined whether such a challenge should proceed by habeas corpus or judicial review, whether the start of the period for removal under the Extradition Act 2003 may be postponed more than once, and whether a requested person is entitled to notice of, and a hearing on, a request to postpone it. The Court held that the detention was lawful and that there was no such entitlement, and dismissed the challenge.

Professional Approach

Eliza is recognised for her meticulous preparation, persuasive advocacy and commitment to achieving the best possible outcome for every client. Her ability to navigate complex legal systems, together with her fluency in English and Romanian and extensive cross-border experience, makes her a trusted adviser in high-value international disputes.

Her dedication to client care, technical excellence and strategic thinking has established her as an integral part of AM International Solicitors’ international litigation team and a respected practitioner in criminal defence, extradition, civil litigation and European legal affairs.