The Court of Appeal has referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Zsolt Siklósi’s appeal against an order directing his surrender to Hungary. The appeal is stayed pending the CJEU’s ruling; the Court of Appeal has not yet resolved the remaining grounds of appeal or finally determined surrender.
Hungary seeks Mr Siklósi to serve the remaining 11 months of a one-year prison sentence imposed for four offences committed in 2005. The Court of Appeal’s judgment says those offences arose from domestic violence against his former spouse, child and mother-in-law. The sentence was initially suspended. In June 2012, a Hungarian appeal court ordered it enforced while also replacing a fine for a later child-support offence with a five-month prison sentence. Mr Siklósi was absent from that hearing, but a court-appointed defence attorney attended.
The High Court directed surrender in December 2020. Mr Siklósi argued, among other grounds, that enforcing the 2005 sentence after the later conviction in his absence raised issues under fair-trial protections and the rules governing European Arrest Warrants. The Court of Appeal considered that it could proceed on a provisional view that the 2012 proceedings did not comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It said the central question was whether those proceedings were relevant to the surrender decision at all.
The Court referred three questions to the CJEU. They ask whether the proceedings leading to the later conviction and enforcement order count as the “trial resulting in the decision” under the European Arrest Warrant rules; whether the executing court may examine compliance with fair-trial rights; and what remedy may be required if those rights were breached, including refusal of surrender or a guarantee of a retrial or appeal.
The Court rejected the other grounds it decided. It held that the fact the later triggering offence was not an offence under Irish law did not itself bar surrender. It also rejected arguments that the earlier refusal of surrender created an issue estoppel or that the renewed request was an abuse of process. The earlier refusal had rested on evidence then suggesting a retrial would occur; the later material showed no retrial had been ordered and that surrender was sought to enforce the sentence.
The Court also rejected objections based on delay and insufficient clarity in the warrant. It criticised the repeated requests for further information, saying clearer information at the outset could have avoided confusion and delay, but concluded that the High Court had enough information to decide the application.