Rechtbank Amsterdam, 16-09-2026 (13-163816-26)

RECHTBANK AMSTERDAM INTERNATIONALE RECHTSHULPKAMER Parketnummer: 13-163816-26 (EAB I) Datum uitspraak: 16 september 2026 UITSPRAAK op de vordering van 10 juli 2026 van de officier van justitie bij deze rechtbank tot het in behandeling nemen van een Europees aanhoudingsbevel (EAB). Dit EAB is uitgevaardigd op 7 augustus 2025 door de Braşov Court-Criminal Section , Roemenië, (hierna: de uitvaardigende justitiële autoriteit) en strekt tot de aanhouding en overlevering van: [de opgeëiste persoon] , geboren op [geboortedag] 1981 te [geboorteland] (Roemenië), zonder vaste woon- of verblijfplaats in Nederland, nu gedetineerd in de [detentieadres] , hierna ‘de opgeëiste persoon’. 1 Procesgang De behandeling van het EAB heeft plaatsgevonden op de zitting van 2 september 2026, in aanwezigheid van mr. J.I.P. Hofstee, officier van justitie. De opgeëiste persoon is verschenen en is bijgestaan door zijn raadsman, mr. F.C. Knoef, advocaat in ’s-Gravenhage, en door een tolk in de Roemeense taal. De rechtbank heeft de termijn waarbinnen zij op grond van de Overleveringswet (OLW) uitspraak moet doen over de verzochte overlevering met 30 dagen verlengd. Ook heeft de rechtbank voor sluiting van het onderzoek ter zitting de gevangenneming bevolen. 2 Identiteit van de opgeëiste persoon Ter zitting heeft de opgeëiste persoon verklaard dat de bovenvermelde persoonsgegevens juist zijn en dat hij de Roemeense nationaliteit heeft. 3 Grondslag en inhoud van het EAB en genoegzaamheid Het EAB vermeldt een vonnis, te weten Criminal Judgment No. 70/20.01.2025 of the Braşov District Court, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 508/A/18.06.2025 of the Braşov Court of Appeal. Reference: Criminal case No. 4955/197/2024. De overlevering wordt verzocht voor de tenuitvoerlegging van een vrijheidsstraf voor de duur van vijf jaar en één maand. De opgeëiste persoon is tot deze straf veroordeeld in het hiervoor genoemde arrest. Deze straf resteert volgens het EAB nog volledig. De hiervoor genoemde veroordeling ziet op de feiten zoals die zijn omschreven in het EAB. Op 27 augustus 2026 heeft het Internationale Rechtshulp Centrum (IRC) de volgende vraag aan de uitvaardigende justitiële autoriteit gesteld. “Could you please confirm that the ‘two’ offences as referred to in section E concern the two judgements that are mentioned in the description of section E? If not, I would like to ask you to clarify to us the number of offences the warrant refers to.” Op 27 augustus 2026 heeft de uitvaardigende justitiële autoriteit de volgende aanvullende informatie verstrekt. “(…) The European Arrest Warrant No. 23 dated 07.07.2025, issued by the Braşov Local Court regarding the individual [de opgeëiste persoon] (born on [geboortedag] , 1981, in [plaats 2]), refers to 3 offenses (and not 2 offenses, as mistakenly stated due to a clerical error in Section E of the warrant), namely:  aggravated theft, as provided for by Art. 228 paragraph (1) – 229 paragraph (1) letters b), c), and d) and paragraph (2) letter b) of the Criminal Code;  driving a vehicle without a driving license, an offense provided for by Art. 335 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (act committed on 24.12.2021);  refusal or evasion of biological sample collection, an offense provided for by Art. 337 of the Criminal Code (act committed on 24.12.2021). Furthermore, we confirm that the 3 offenses described in Section E and listed above refer to the two court judgments mentioned in the description within Section E, namely:  Criminal Judgment No. 70/20.01.2025 rendered by the Braşov Local Court, which became final through Criminal Decision No. 508/A/18.06.2025 of the Braşov Court of Appeal;  Criminal Judgment No. 529/15.04.2022 rendered by the Galaţi Local Court, which became final through Criminal Decision No. 1024/A/31.10.2022 of the Galaţi Court of Appeal. To the extent that you deem it necessary, the aforementioned details can be officially recorded by means of a court order for the rectification of a clerical error regarding the European Arrest Warrant No. 23 dated 07.07.2025 issued by the Braşov Local Court.” De raadsman en de officier van justitie hebben geen opmerkingen ten aanzien van de grondslag en/of de genoegzaamheid van het EAB gemaakt. Naar het oordeel van de rechtbank is het EAB genoegzaam. 4 Weigeringsgrond als bedoeld in artikel 12 OLW Inleiding In het EAB staat vermeld: “ Yes, the person was personally attending to the trial following which the judgement was passed.” Op 28 juli 2026 heeft het Internationale Rechtshulp Centrum (IRC) de volgende vragen aan de uitvaardigende justitiële autoriteit gesteld. “1. Could you please inform me which judgement or decision section D of the EAW has been filled in? Judgement no. 70/20.01.2025 and decision no.508/A/18.06.2025 (section B) 2. Could you please confirm that the decision no.508/A/18.06.2025 of the Brasov Court of Appeal (ref. no. 4955/197/2024) is the final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal and which, accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits in the meaning of the Case C 397/22 of the European Court of Justice of 21.12.2023 (ECLI:EU:C:2023:1030)? 3. Has section D of the EAW been filled in for this final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal and which, accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits? In case not, could you please fill in and return the model form of section D included as an annex to this email with regard to this judgement that concerns the final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal, which accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits? 4. Could you please confirm whether [de opgeëiste persoon] had been personally present at the hearing(s) that led to the final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal and which, accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits? In case the requested person did not appear in person at the trial that led to the final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal, which accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits, was not summoned in person, and was not represented by a mandated defense lawyer, could you please answer the following questions for me: 5. Did the requested person provide the Romanian authorities with his address during the proceedings in the concerning criminal case and have the summons for the Court hearing in Appeal also been sent to this address? 6. Did the requested person, during the proceedings in the concerning criminal case, receive instructions about the duty to inform the Romanian authorities about address changes and about the consequences of not complying with this obligation? a. Did he sign for these instructions? b. Was the requested person also reminded in these address instruction of his rights and obligations with regard to the entire procedure, including the Appeal procedure? Section E of the EAW states that with the decision no. 508/A/18.06.2025 the Court revoked the suspension of the execution of the sentence imposed by judgement no. 529/15.04.2022 and decision no. 1024/A/31.10.2022 and ordered the execution of the sentence. 7. Could you please clarify the reason of the revocation of the remaining sentence? 8. If the reason for the enforcement is due to the fact that the requested person had been convicted of a new criminal offence, a. Could you please provide me with the date and references of the judgement thereof? b. Could you please fill in and return the model form of section D included as an annex to this email with regard to the judgement by which [de opgeëiste persoon] had been convicted for this new criminal offence? (Given the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU in cases LU (C-514/21) and PH (C-515/21), ECLI:EU:C:2023:235.) In case the requested person did not appear in person at this hearing, was not summoned in person for the trial that led to the final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal, which accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits, and was not represented by a mandated defense lawyer at the hearing: 9. Did the requested person provide the Romanian authorities with his address during the proceedings in the concerning criminal case and have the summons for the Court hearing also been sent to this address? 10. Did the requested person, during the proceedings in the concerning criminal case, receive instructions about the duty to inform the Romanian authorities about address changes and about the consequences of not complying with this obligation? a. Did he sign for these instructions? b. Was the requested person also reminded in these address instruction of his rights and obligations with regard to the entire procedure, including the Appeal procedure? Judgement no. 529/15.04.2022 and decision no. 1024/A/31.10.2022 (section E) 11. Could you please confirm that the decision no. 1024/A/31.10.2022 of the Galaţi Court of Appeal is the final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal and which, accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits in the meaning of the Case C 397/22 of the European Court of Justice of 21.12.2023 (ECLI:EU:C:2023:1030)? 12. Has section D of the EAW been filled in for this final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal and which, accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits? In case not, could you please fill in and return the model form of section D included as an annex to this email with regard to this judgement that concerns the final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal, which accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits? 13. Could you please confirm whether [de opgeëiste persoon] had been personally present at the hearing(s) that led to the final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal and which, accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits? In case the requested person did not appear in person at the trial that led to the final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal, which accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits, was not summoned in person, and was not represented by a mandated defense lawyer, could you please answer the following questions for me: 14. Did the requested person provide the Romanian authorities with his address during the proceedings in the concerning criminal case and have the summons for the Court hearing in appeal also been sent to this address? 15. Did the requested person, during the proceedings in the concerning criminal case, receive instructions about the duty to inform the Romanian authorities about address changes and about the consequences of not complying with this obligation? a. Did he sign for these instructions? b. Was the requested person also reminded in these address instruction of his rights and obligations with regard to the entire procedure, including the Appeal procedure?” Op 31 juli 2026 heeft de uitvaardigende justitiële autoriteit de volgende aanvullende informatie verstrekt. “Criminal Case No. 4955/197/2024 of the Braşov District Court – Criminal Judgment No. 70 dated 20.01.2025 of the Braşov District Court, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 508 dated 18.06.2025 of the Braşov Court of Appeal. 1. The information contained in Section D of the European Arrest Warrant refers to Criminal Judgment No. 70 dated 20.01.2025 rendered by the Braşov District Court, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 508 dated 18.06.2025 of the Braşov Court of Appeal. 2. By Criminal Decision No. 508 dated 18.06.2025, the Braşov Court of Appeal finally disposed of the case. To date, the convicted person, [de opgeëiste persoon] , has not filed any extraordinary appeal. 3. The information contained in Section D refers to Criminal Judgment No. 70 dated 20.01.2025 rendered by the Braşov District Court, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 508 dated 18.06.2025 of the Braşov Court of Appeal. 4–6. The defendant [de opgeëiste persoon] was personally present during the proceedings resulting in the judgment by which he was sentenced to 5 years and 1 month of imprisonment, having been held in pre-trial detention during the period 01.02.2024 – 11.07.2024, and subsequently being placed under the judicial control measure, as follows: By Order No. 18 dated 02.02.2024 of the Judge for Rights and Liberties of the Braşov District Court, the measure of pre-trial detention was ordered against the defendant [de opgeëiste persoon] for a period of 30 days, commencing on 02.02.2024 and ending on 02.03.2024, the measure being successively extended until 11.07.2024, when, by Order No. 248/11.07.2024 of the Preliminary Chamber Judges of the Braşov Tribunal, the challenge lodged by the defendant against the Order of 04.07.2024 of the Preliminary Chamber Judge of the Braşov District Court was upheld, the legality and merits of the pre-trial detention measure imposed on the defendant were reviewed, and it was ordered that the pre-trial detention measure be replaced with the judicial control measure for a period of 60 days, commencing on 11.07.2024. At the hearing held on 04.11.2024, the court informed him of the charges brought against him by the indictment, as well as of the fact that he had the right not to make any statement, that everything he states may be used against him and that, should he choose to make a statement, he is under the obligation to tell everything he knows regarding the charges brought against him. The defendant [de opgeëiste persoon] , assisted by his privately retained counsel, expressly stated that he understood the charges brought against him by the indictment, acknowledged committing the offences for which he had been committed for trial, and understood that he would be tried pursuant to the provisions of Art. 374 and Art. 375 CPC, solely on the basis of the evidence administered during the criminal investigation, which he acknowledged and adopted. During the hearing of the appeal, the defendant [de opgeëiste persoon] personally appeared at the hearing held on 26.05.2025, assisted by privately retained counsel. At that hearing, the court informed him of the provisions of Art. 83(a) CPC, according to which he has the right to make or decline to make a statement before the appellate court, while also drawing his attention to the fact that, should he refuse to make a statement, he would suffer no adverse consequences, whereas, should he choose to make a statement, everything he declares may be used as evidence against him. The appellant-defendant [de opgeëiste persoon] stated that he did not wish to make a statement before the appellate court and maintained the statements previously given during the criminal investigation stage. 7. By Criminal Judgment No. 529/15.04.2022 rendered by the Galaţi District Court, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 1024/A/31.10.2022 rendered by the Galaţi Court of Appeal, the defendant [de opgeëiste persoon] was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 1 year and 7 months’ imprisonment, the execution of which was suspended under supervision for a period of 3 years, for committing the offence of driving a vehicle without a driving licence, as provided for by Art. 335(1) Criminal Code, with the application of Art. 396(10) CPC (offence committed on 24.12.2021), and the offence of refusal or evasion of the collection of biological samples, as provided for by Art. 337 Criminal Code, with the application of Art. 396(10) CPC (offence committed on 24.12.2021). Having analysed the date on which the offence in Criminal Case No. 4955/106/2024 (20.01.2024) was committed, the penalties imposed, the date on which the above-mentioned Criminal Judgment became final (31.10.2022), and the date on which the 3-year supervision period established by that judgment would expire (31.10.2025), the court found that the offence had been committed under the conditions of post-conviction recidivism, the offence having been committed before the sentence of 1 year and 7 months’ imprisonment was deemed to have been served. The court further held that, in the present case, the provisions of Art. 96(4) Criminal Code concerning the revocation of the suspension of the execution of the sentence under supervision are applicable, since, during the supervision period of the suspension under supervision of the sentence previously imposed by Criminal Judgment No. 529/15.04.2022 rendered by the Galaţi District Court, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 1024/A/31.10.2022 rendered by the Galaţi Court of Appeal (the 3-year period running from 31.10.2022 until 31.10.2025), it was established that the defendant had committed a new offence (on 20.01.2024), for which she was sentenced to imprisonment (3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment by the present judgment). In conclusion, the defendant committed the offence of theft during the supervision period and, therefore, pursuant to Art. 583(1) CPC in conjunction with Art. 96(4) Criminal Code, the court revoked the suspension under supervision of the execution of the sentence of 1 year and 7 months’ imprisonment imposed by Criminal Judgment No. 529/15.04.2022 rendered by the Galaţi District Court, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 1024/A/31.10.2022 rendered by the Galaţi Court of Appeal, and ordered the execution of that sentence, namely the aggregate sentence of 1 year and 7 months’ imprisonment, taking into account that this sentence (imposed for a concurrence of offences) constitutes the first term of the post-conviction recidivism. Pursuant to Art. 96(5) in conjunction with Art. 43(1) Criminal Code, the court added to the sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment the aggregate sentence of 1 year and 7 months’ imprisonment, the defendant being required to serve the resulting aggregate sentence of 5 (five) years and 1 (one) month of imprisonment, under a custodial regime. Criminal Judgment No. 529 dated 15.04.2022, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 1024/31.10.2022 of the Galaţi Court of Appeal. 8–10. The defendant [de opgeëiste persoon] was present during the trial in which Criminal Judgment No. 529/15.04.2022 was rendered by the Galaţi District Court, having been held in pre-trial detention during the period 24.12.2021 – 15.04.2022. During the trial, at the hearing held on 15.03.2022, the defendant [de opgeëiste persoon] stated that he fully admitted the offence described in the indictment and requested that the case be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence administered during the criminal investigation stage, which he acknowledged and adopted. By Criminal Judgment No. 529 dated 15.04.2022 of the Galaţi District Court, the defendant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, with the execution of the sentence suspended under supervision for a period of 3 years. 11. Criminal Decision No. 1024 dated 31.10.2022 rendered by the Galaţi Court of Appeal is final, the convicted person [de opgeëiste persoon] having filed no extraordinary appeal. 12. Section D of the European Arrest Warrant refers to Criminal Judgment No. 70 dated 20.01.2025 rendered by the Braşov District Court, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 508 dated 18.06.2025 of the Braşov Court of Appeal, but it is also applicable to the criminal judgment rendered by the Galaţi District Court, the defendant having been personally present during the proceedings while being held in pre-trial detention. 13–15. Through privately retained counsel, the defendant appealed against the judgment rendered by the Galaţi District Court, essentially criticizing the first-instance judgment as being unfounded with regard to the quantum of the principal penalties imposed, requesting that the penalties be reassessed and re-individualized. In this regard, he stated that he had shown a sincere attitude, had benefited from the simplified procedure, and that the offences committed did not present a high degree of social danger. The Galaţi Court of Appeal, examining the appealed judgment in light of the criticisms raised, as well as ex officio in all respects, held that the first-instance court had correctly established the facts based on the evidence administered in the case and that the offence committed by the defendant had been correctly classified from a legal standpoint. Furthermore, before the first-instance court, the defendant admitted committing the offence as described in the indictment and requested that the case be adjudicated under the simplified procedure based on the admission of guilt, pursuant to Art. 374 CPC. However, the Court considered that, having regard to the specific seriousness of the offences committed by the defendant, as well as to the circumstances characterizing his person, the penalties imposed and, consequently, the resulting aggregate sentence, were excessive, making their adjustment necessary. For these reasons, the Court allowed the appeal lodged by the defendant [de opgeëiste persoon] , partially quashed Criminal Judgment No. 529/15.04.2022 rendered by the Galaţi District Court in Case No.400/233/2022, reduced the penalties imposed on the defendant, and ordered the execution of the aggregate sentence of 1 year and 7 months’ imprisonment, suspended under supervision for a period of 3 years.” Bij brief van dezelfde datum is door de uitvaardigende justitiële autoriteit de volgende aanvullende informatie verstrekt. “11. Case C-397/22 of the Court of Justice of the European Union dated 21.12.2023 (ECLl:EU:C:2023:1030) is not applicable, as it concerns trials in absentia, whereas in relation to the criminal decision no. 1024/A dated 31.10.2022 of the Galaţi Court of Appeal, the defendant [de opgeëiste persoon] was present and was represented by counsel of his own choosing during the determination of the appeal. 12. No, jurisdiction lies with the Braşov District Court. 13. The defendant [de opgeëiste persoon] was personally present at the hearing of the appeal and was represented by designated defence counsel, lawyer Morandau Edmond.” Op 20 augustus 2026 heeft het IRC de volgende aanvullende vragen gesteld. “1. Could you please fill in and return the model form of section D included as an annex to this email with regard to the Criminal Decision No. 1024/31.10.2022 of the Galaţi Court of Appeal? In case the requested person did not appear in person at this hearing, was not summoned in person for the trial that led to the final decision which is no longer subject to an ordinary appeal, which accordingly, finally disposes of the case on the merits, and was not represented by a mandated defense lawyer at the hearing: 2. Did the requested person provide the Romanian authorities with his address during the proceedings in the concerning criminal case and have the summons for the Court hearing also been sent to this address? 3. Did the requested person, during the proceedings in the concerning criminal case, receive instructions about the duty to inform the Romanian authorities about address changes and about the consequences of not complying with this obligation? a. Did he sign for these instructions? b. Was the requested person also reminded in these address instruction of his rights and obligations with regard to the entire procedure, including the Appeal procedure? Op 24 augustus 2026 is de volgende aanvullende informatie verstrekt. “(…) We hereby inform you of the following details concerning the aforementioned criminal decision: Following the checks performed, the following aspects were noted regarding the participation of Mr. [de opgeëiste persoon] in the resolution of criminal case no. 400/233/2022: -on April 20, 2022, Mr. [de opgeëiste persoon] filed an appeal against criminal judgment no. 529 of April 15, 2022, pronounced by the Galaţi Court in criminal case no. 400/233/2022; -at the first hearing scheduled in the case-specifically June 2, 2022, for the resolution of the appeal-Mr. [de opgeëiste persoon] appeared in person and requested that the court adjourn the proceedings and set a new hearing date to allow him to retain legal counsel. The request for adjournment was granted, and a new hearing date was set to enable the defendant to retain a defense lawyer; -At the hearing on September 6, 2022, the defendant' s retained counsel-attorney Edmond Morändäu-appeared and informed the court that [de opgeëiste persoon] was under house arrest in connection with another criminal case and, for this reason, was unable to appear before the court for the scheduled hearing. In light of this situation, in order to give the defendant the opportunity to appear for the resolution of the appeal, the court set a new hearing date and ordered that he be summoned through the Galaţi Judicia Supervision Office of the Galaţi County Police Inspectorate. -At the hearing on October 4, 2022, [de opgeëiste persoon] (who is under house arrest in connection with another criminal case) appeared in court, assisted by his chosen counsel, lawyer Edmond Morãndãu. Hearing at which the defendant, upon being questioned pursuant to Art. 420 para. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code in conjunction with Art. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stated that he maintains the statements previously given in the case and does not wish to make any further statements before the appellate court. Hearing at which arguments were presented regarding the appeal filed in the case. From the aforementioned details, it is evident that [de opgeëiste persoon] participated in the resolution of the appeal in the criminal case in which Criminal Decision no. 1024/A October 31, 2022, was handed down by the Galaţi Court of Appeal (criminal case file no. 400/233/2022). Furthermore, at the trial court, during the hearing held on March 15, 2022, Mr. [de opgeëiste persoon] was present, assisted by counsel, and admitted to the criminal offense for which he was under investigation. Both at the trial court and at the appellate court, during the judicial inquiry phase and prior to each hearing, the defendant was informed of his procedural rights in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Art. 83 -rights of the defendant), namely: "During the criminal proceedings, the defendant has the following rights: a) the right not to make any statement during the criminal proceedings, with the warning that refusing to make a statement will entail no adverse consequences, whereas making a statement means it may be used as evidence against him; a 1) the right to be informed of the act for which he is being investigated and its legal classification; b) the right to consult the case file, in accordance with the law; c) the right to have a chosen lawyer, and-in cases where legal assistance is mandatory-the right to have a court-appointed lawyer assigned if he does not designate one himself; d) the right to propose the administration of evidence under the conditions provided by law, to raise objections, and to present arguments; e) the right to submit any other requests regarding the resolution of the criminal and civil aspects of the case; f) the right to the free assistance of an interpreter when he does not understand, cannot express himself well, or cannot communicate in the Romanian language; g) the right to use a mediator, in cases permitted by law; g1) the right to be informed of his rights; h) other rights provided by law." Furthermore, the provisions of Article 259, paragraph (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were communicated to him/her: "The suspect or the defendant is obliged to notify the judicia! authority of any change of residential address within a maximum of 3 days. The suspect or the defendant is informed of this obligation during the hearing, as well as of the consequences of failing to comply with it." All these rights and obligations were brought to his attention, and he signed to acknowledge these instructions. Furthermore, the defendant could also pursue extraordinary legal remedies against final criminal judgments, namely: a challenge for annulment and a request for revision.” Op 25 augustus 2026 heeft het IRC de volgende aanvullende vraag gesteld. “"Having analysed the date on which the offence in Criminal Case No. 4955/106/2024 (20.01.2024) was committed (...)". - Could you please inform me whether '/106/' in abovementioned criminal case appears to be a clerical error, as the judgement no. 70/20.01.2025 is referred to as ' Criminal Case No. 4955/197/2024 of the Braşov District Court' which is written very similarly, or whether Criminal Case No. 4955/106/2024 (20.01.2024) is in fact a different judgement?” Op 26 augustus 2026 is de volgende aanvullende informatie versterkt. “(…) we hereby inform you that a clerical error occurred in the response provided by the Braşov Local Court on 31.07.2026, specifically under point 7 - paragraph 2, which reads: "Analyzing the date the offense was committed in criminal case no. 4955/106/2024 (20.01.2024)...", in the sense that the case number was recorded incorrectly. Please note that following the verifications carried out, the correct case number is "…4955/197/2024 (20.01.2024)...".” Standpunt van de verdediging De raadsman heeft ten aanzien van deze weigeringsgrond geen standpunt ingenomen. Standpunt van de officier van justitie De officier van justitie heeft zich op het standpunt gesteld dat uit de van de uitvaardigende justitiële autoriteit ontvangen aanvullende informatie blijkt dat de opgeëiste persoon in persoon aanwezig was bij de zittingen die hebben geleid tot the Criminal Judgment No. 70/20.01.2025 of the Braşov District Court, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 508/ A/18.06.2025 of the Braşov Court of Appeal. Reference: Criminal case No. 4955/197 /2024 en the Criminal Judgment No. 529 dated 15.04.2022, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 1024/31.10.2022 of the Galaţi Court of Appeal. Artikel 12 OLW is dus niet van toepassing. Oordeel van de rechtbank Ten aanzien van: - Criminal Judgment No. 70/20.01.2025 of the Braşov District Court, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 508/ A/18.06.2025 of the Braşov Court of Appeal. Reference: Criminal case No. 4955/197 /2024 , en - Criminal Judgment No. 529 dated 15.04.2022, which became final by Criminal Decision No. 1024/31.10.2022 of the Galaţi Court of Appeal. Als het proces in twee opeenvolgende instanties heeft plaatsgevonden, namelijk een procedure in eerste aanleg gevolgd door een procedure in hoger beroep, dan is de beslissing in de laatste van die procedures relevant voor de beoordeling of is voldaan aan de vereisten van artikel 4 bis, eerste lid, Kaderbesluit 2002/584/JBZ en artikel 12 OLW, voor zover daartegen geen gewoon rechtsmiddel meer openstaat en daarom de zaak ten gronde definitief is afgedaan. De rechtbank zal daarom de beslissing van the Braşov Court of Appeal van 18 juni 2025 en de beslissing van the Galaţi Court of Appeal van 15 april 2022 toetsen aan artikel 12 OLW. Uit het EAB en de ontvangen aanvullende informatie blijkt dat de opgeëiste persoon in persoon is verschenen bij de processen die tot die beslissingen hebben geleid. De weigeringsgrond van artikel 12 OLW is daarom niet van toepassing. 5 Strafbaarheid De uitvaardigende justitiële autoriteit heeft de strafbare feiten niet aangeduid als lijstfeiten. Overlevering kan in dat geval worden toegestaan, als – kort gezegd – voldaan is aan de vereisten dat voor de feiten een vrijheidsstraf van ten minste vier maanden is opgelegd aan de opgeëiste persoon en de feiten ook naar Nederlands recht strafbaar zijn. De feiten leveren naar Nederlands recht op: diefstal waarbij de schuldige zich de toegang tot de plaats van het misdrijf heeft verschaft door middel van braak, terwijl het feit wordt gepleegd door twee of meer verenigde personen; overtreding van artikel 107, eerste lid van de Wegenverkeerswet 1994; overtreding van artikel 160 van de Wegenverkeerswet 1994. 6 Weigeringsgrond als bedoeld in artikel 6a OLW Inleiding De overlevering van de opgeëiste persoon is gevraagd voor de tenuitvoerlegging van een onherroepelijk opgelegde vrijheidsstraf. De rechtbank kan de overlevering weigeren als de opgeëiste persoon gelijk kan worden gesteld met een Nederlander en de opgelegde straf door Nederland kan worden overgenomen. Standpunt van de raadsman De raadsman heeft namens de opgeëiste persoon de rechtbank verzocht de opgeëiste persoon gelijk te stellen met een Nederlander. De raadsman heeft daartoe aangevoerd dat de opgeëiste persoon heeft verklaard dat hij op meerdere momenten in Nederland is geweest, waaronder een periode van naar zijn inschatting vijf à zes jaar. In het SKDB staat een in oktober 2018 opgegeven adres in [plaats 1] . De opgeëiste persoon heeft daarnaast verklaard dat hij in de bouw heeft gewerkt en dat hij bij een vriend verbleef op het opgegeven adres in [plaats 1] . Er zou ook familie van de opgeëiste persoon in [plaats 1] zou wonen. Standpunt van de officier van justitie De officier van justitie heeft zich op het standpunt gesteld dat de opgeëiste persoon niet gelijk kan worden gesteld met een Nederlander. Door de opgeëiste persoon en zijn raadsman is niet aangetoond dat de opgeëiste persoon vijf jaar ononderbroken rechtmatig verblijf in Nederland heeft gehad. Oordeel van de rechtbank Om in aanmerking te komen voor gelijkstelling met een Nederlander moet op grond van artikel 6a, negende lid, OLW zijn voldaan aan de volgende twee vereisten: de opgeëiste persoon verblijft ten minste vijf jaar ononderbroken rechtmatig in Nederland als bedoeld in artikel 8, onder a tot en met e en l, Vreemdelingenwet 2000; én ten aanzien van de opgeëiste persoon bestaat de verwachting dat hij niet zijn recht van verblijf in Nederland verliest als gevolg van een hem na overlevering opgelegde straf of maatregel. De eerste voorwaarde De rechtbank is van oordeel dat de opgeëiste persoon niet aan de hand van de overgelegde stukken heeft aangetoond dat hij ten minste vijf jaar ononderbroken rechtmatig in Nederland verblijft als bedoeld in artikel 8, onder a tot en met e en l, Vreemdelingenwet 2000 en daarmee een duurzaam verblijfsrecht heeft verworven. Aan de eerste voorwaarde is dus niet voldaan. De rechtbank kan de opgeëiste persoon dan ook niet gelijkstellen met een Nederlander. 7 Artikel 11 OLW: detentieomstandigheden Inleiding De rechtbank heeft eerder vastgesteld dat uit de algemene detentieomstandigheden in Roemenië een reëel gevaar van onmenselijke of vernederende behandeling in de zin van artikel 4 Handvest van de grondrechten van de EU (Handvest) voortvloeit voor personen die in een Roemeense penitentiaire instelling worden gedetineerd, met name vanwege de overbevolking in de penitentiaire instellingen. Op 15 juli 2026 heeft het IRC de volgende vragen aan de uitvaardigende justitiële autoriteit gesteld. “A. In which prison in Romania will [de opgeëiste persoon] most probably be detained after his surrender, during the enforcement of the sentence? B. How much ‘personal space’ (excluding sanitary facilities), as meant in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (i.a. ECHR 10 March 2015, nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13 and 64586/13, Varga et al./Hungary § 74), will be available to [de opgeëiste persoon] in his cell in that prison? C. If the personal space will amount between 3 sq. m and 4 sq. m excluding sanitary facilities, I would like to request you to answer the following questions regarding that prison as well: - How are the “other aspects of physical conditions of detention” as meant in ECHR 24 July 2012, no. 35972/05 (Iacov Stanciu/Romania), § 169 in that prison? - In this connection, the Court finds it important that the issuing judicial authority will also comment on the possibilities of “purposeful activities” and “outdoor exercise”, as meant in the Annex to the CPT report “Living space per prisoner in prison establishments CPT standards (15 December 2015, CPT/Inf (2015)44)”, in its answer to this question.” Bij brief van 3 augustus 2026 van the Court of Appeal, is de volgende aanvullende informatie verstrekt ten aanzien van de opgeëiste persoon: “1. In the situation where the person deprived of liberty will be handed over to the Romanian authorities at Henri Coanda Bucharest Airport, he shall be initially taken to the Bucharest Rahova Penitentiary, for the quarantine period of 21 days, in a room ensuring a minimum space of 3 sqm. - (…) Having regard to the length of the sentence, it is most likely that he will initially serve the custodial sentence under the closed regime. Furthermore, considering his domicile, it is most likely that he will initially serve his sentence at Galaţi Penitentiary. (…) 2. The person [de opgeëiste persoon] shall be provided with a minimum individual living space of 3 sq. m throughout the execution of the sentence, except where assigned to the open regime, during which he shall be provided with 4 sq. m, including the bed and its associated furniture, excluding the area allocated to the sanitary facilities, the number of prisoners being determined in relation to the surface area of the room. Each prisoner shall be provided with 4 sq.m. including the bed and it’s associated furniture, excluding the area allocated to sanitary facilities, the number of prisoners being determined in relation to the surface area of the room. Each prisoner shall be provided with an individual bed equipped with the standard bedding. (…) Persons deprived of liberty who are in the quarantine and observation period at Bucharest-Rahova Penitentiary are entitled to 2 hours of outdoor exercise daily, while those serving their sentence under the closed regime at Galaţi Penitentiary are entitled to 1 hour and 30 minutes of outdoor exercise daily. (…) The National Administration of Penitentiaries guarantees that the custodial sentence will be executed throughout its entire duration, including the quarantine and observation period, under decent conditions ensuring respect for human dignity.” Standpunt van de raadsman De raadsman heeft de rechtbank verzocht de behandeling van de zaak aan te houden om de Roemeense autoriteit nadere vragen te stellen over de tijd die de opgeëiste persoon in het closed regime buiten zijn cel kan verblijven als hij aan alle activiteiten deelneemt. In de uitspraak van de rechtbank van 11 augustus 2026 , waar de opgeëiste persoon eveneens hoogstwaarschijnlijk zou worden geplaatst in Bucharest-Rahova Penitentiary en Galati Penitentiary , heeft de rechtbank overwogen dat het algemene gevaar is uitgesloten door de garanties die Roemenië in die zaak heeft afgegeven omtrent de detentieomstandigheden van die opgeëiste persoon. Het gaat in de kern om de hoeveelheid vierkante meters (exclusief sanitair) waarover de opgeëiste persoon in een meerpersoonscel zou kunnen beschikken. Die garanties werden in die zaak voldoende geacht omdat de rechtbank niet beschikt over objectieve, betrouwbare, nauwkeurige en naar behoren bijgewerkte gegevens van het tegendeel. Door Roemenië zijn ook in de zaak van opgeëiste persoon garanties omtrent zijn detentieomstandigheden gegeven die inhoudelijk overeenkomen met die in de uitspraak van 11 augustus 2026. Het is voor de verdediging ingewikkeld om objectieve, betrouwbare, nauwkeurige en naar behoren bijgewerkte gegevens aan te leveren. De opgeëiste persoon, die nog in 2024 gedetineerd heeft gezeten, maakt uit eigen ervaring melding van overbevolking, kapotte ramen, beperkte verwarming en beperkte toegang tot warm water, en bedwantsen. Het betreft de punten op grond waarvan eerder door de rechtbank een algemeen gevaar is aangenomen. Daarnaast valt op dat er in het gesloten regime in de Galaţi Penitentiary uit wordt gegaan van deelname aan een programma waar werk, scholing, culturele activiteiten en sportactiviteiten deel van uitmaken. Er wordt echter niet gespecificeerd hoe lang dit programma per dag is, terwijl duidelijk moet zijn dat de opgeëiste persoon voldoende tijd buiten de meerpersoonscel met zeer beperkte persoonlijke ruimte mag verkeren. Standpunt van de officier van justitie De officier van justitie heeft zich op het standpunt gesteld dat het door de rechtbank vastgestelde algemene gevaar is weggenomen door de verstrekte garanties. Het vertrouwensbeginsel brengt met zich dat uitgegaan dient te worden van de juistheid van de door de Roemeense autoriteiten verstrekte informatie. In eerdere uitspraken heeft de rechtbank vergelijkbare garanties van de Roemeense autoriteiten voldoende geacht en de rechtbank heeft in die zaken de overlevering toegestaan. Uit de uitspraak van de rechtbank van 5 februari 2025 blijkt dat als er door gedetineerden in Roemeense gevangenissen wordt gewerkt, dat voor acht uur per dag is. Oordeel van de rechtbank Aan de hand van een globale beoordeling van alle gegevens waarover zij beschikt, gaat de rechtbank uit van de geboden zekerheid in voormelde garantie van 3 augustus 2026. De rechtbank is, gelet op de van de Roemeense autoriteiten verkregen garantie, van oordeel dat het vastgestelde algemene reële gevaar van onmenselijke of vernederende detentie-omstandigheden voor de opgeëiste persoon is weggenomen. Het algemene gevaar, dat de rechtbank ten aanzien van de detentieomstandigheden in Roemeense penitentiaire inrichtingen heeft aangenomen, wordt door de garantie immers uitgesloten ten aanzien van de opgeëiste persoon. Dit algemene gevaar ziet, gelet op de overbevolking, op de hoeveelheid vierkante meters persoonlijke ruimte exclusief sanitair waarover de opgeëiste persoon kan beschikken. Nu er ten minste 3 m2 persoonlijke ruimte is gegarandeerd en er geen algemeen gevaar is aangenomen voor materiële detentieomstandigheden, is het algemene gevaar weggenomen volgens het geldende criterium uit het arrest Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Detentieomstandigheden in Hongarije) van het Hof van Justitie van de EU. Dit betekent dat de detentieomstandigheden niet aan de overlevering in de weg staan. 8 Slotsom De rechtbank stelt vast dat het EAB voldoet aan de eisen van artikel 2 OLW. Verder staan geen weigeringsgronden aan de overlevering in de weg en is geen sprake van een geval waarin aan het EAB geen gevolg mag worden gegeven. De rechtbank staat daarom de overlevering toe. 9 Toepasselijke wetsbepalingen Artikel 311 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht, de artikelen 107, 163 en 177 Wegenverkeerswet 1994 en de artikelen 2, 5 en 7 OLW. 10 Beslissing STAAT TOE de overlevering van [de opgeëiste persoon] aan de Braşov Court-Criminal Section , Roemenië voor de feiten zoals die zijn omschreven in onderdeel e) van het EAB. Deze uitspraak is gedaan door mr. C. Klomp, voorzitter, mrs. A.B.M. Wijnveldt en E.M. de Bie, rechters, in tegenwoordigheid van mr. D. Kloos, griffier. en in het openbaar uitgesproken op de zitting van 16 september 2026. Ingevolge artikel 29, tweede lid, OLW staat tegen deze uitspraak geen gewoon rechtsmiddel open. Zie artikel 23 Overleveringswet. Zie artikel 22, eerste en derde lid, OLW. ÁG513127210301öÈ G513127210301 Zie onderdeel e) van het EAB. Zie onder andere: rechtbank Amsterdam, 2 mei 2016, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:2629 en rechtbank Amsterdam, 27 januari 2021, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:463. ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:8112. ECLI:NL:RBAMS2026:3789 en ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:9559. ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:940. HvJ EU 25 juli 2018, C-220/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:589 ( Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Detentieomstandigheden in Hongarije) ). HvJ EU 25 juli 2018, C-220/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:589 ( Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Detentieomstandigheden in Hongarije) )