The High Court refused surrender on 86 Hungarian copyright-related charges because the European arrest warrant did not allege facts showing that Attila H togyi copied material for financial gain or engaged in a business involving it. The court said surrender was required for a separate drug offence, subject to hearing the parties on specialty.
The Hungarian authorities sought surrender under a warrant issued on 19 May 2006 and endorsed for execution in Ireland on 7 September. The respondent was arrested on 11 September and brought before the High Court the following day. Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered judgment on 24 November 2006.
The warrant listed 62 alleged copyright infringements, 24 alleged infringements of rights related to copyright, and one drug abuse charge. It said illegally copied software and films were found on the respondent’s personal computer and on seized CDs and DVDs during a search of his apartment in June 2004. It also listed 86 entities said to have suffered financial loss.
The Minister’s counsel argued that the volume of material supported an inference that it was not for private use and that the respondent was engaged in sale, rental or lending for profit. The respondent’s counsel argued that the warrant alleged possession only, with no account of a business or sales activity. The judge agreed that correspondence with an Irish offence under section 140 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 had not been established. He said the court could not presume commercial activity from the quantity of material, and the Irish legislation contained no equivalent quantity-based presumption for copyright offences.
The judge distinguished the drug charge. Because it was designated under Article 2.2 of the European arrest warrant framework, double criminality did not have to be verified. He was satisfied that no other statutory or framework bar required refusal of surrender and that the minimum gravity requirement was met for prosecution on that charge.
The court therefore refused surrender in respect of the copyright offences and indicated it would make an order under section 16(1) for surrender on the drug charge. That order was subject to hearing the parties on specialty; the judgment does not record the result of that hearing.