The High Court has ordered the surrender of Gábor Szűcs to Hungary under a European arrest warrant concerning one alleged offence of swindling or fraud.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2020, Mr Justice Paul Burns dismissed three objections raised on Mr Szűcs’s behalf. The order was made under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The court found that surrender was not precluded by the objections or by any other provision considered in the judgment.
Mr Szűcs argued that surrender would conflict with Ireland’s human rights obligations because of conditions in Hungarian prisons and the risk of treatment connected to his sexual orientation. Hungary gave an assurance that he would have at least three square metres of personal space during any detention relating to the warrant, with compliance to be monitored by the Hungarian General Ombudsman. The court accepted that assurance and a further response from the Hungarian Ministry of Justice that Hungary respected non-discrimination obligations under the EU Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judge said reports about Hungary were general and did not establish Mr Szűcs’s likely personal circumstances in the institutions where he might be held. He found there was not sufficient cogent evidence of a real risk that his fundamental rights would be breached and dismissed the objection under section 37.
The court also rejected an objection under section 44, which concerned whether the alleged offence had been committed outside Hungary. The judge said the warrant’s description did not indicate that it occurred outside the issuing state. It recorded that the alleged victim was at home in Hungary when she was offered investment opportunities by telephone and internet. A family account of an investigating officer’s alleged statement that the offence occurred in Ireland was described in the judgment as lacking cogency or evidential value.
The third objection was that Hungary had not decided to charge and try Mr Szűcs, as required under section 21A. A Hungarian prosecution office letter said he had not yet been questioned as a suspect and that a charge was expected if his criminal liability were proved without doubt. The judge held that the statutory presumption that a decision to charge and try had been made had not been rebutted by cogent evidence. He dismissed that objection too.
The warrant was issued on 6 November 2019. The judgment does not record the date on which the surrender order was made beyond stating that the court would make it following dismissal of the objections.