The High Court has sought further information from Hungarian authorities before deciding whether Zoltan Huba Henn should be surrendered under a European Arrest Warrant dated 19 June 2018. The warrant seeks his surrender in connection with convictions for fraud. The court’s judgment is partial: it did not decide the outstanding prison-conditions issue or make a final surrender order.
The warrant refers to sentences of two years and one year, but also says one year remains to be served. The court found it unclear which sentence or sentences the warrant covers, how much time remains on each, and whether the terms run concurrently or consecutively. A request for clarification sent in December 2018 had not received a response.
The court also identified uncertainty over whether the offences listed in the warrant qualify for the Framework Decision category that removes the need to establish corresponding offences in Ireland. The warrant describes the offences as felonies, while additional information calls some misdemeanours. The judge said clarification was needed on which offences fall into each category and whether each carries a maximum prison term of at least three years.
A further question concerns the warrant’s assurance that Henn may seek a retrial or appeal. The court accepted that the right was not invalid because it had no deadline, but said it needed confirmation that the guarantee applied to both the Paks Town Court and Rákeve District Court proceedings.
The judge rejected objections that the warrant was unclear about its enforceable judgment, the number and location of offences, or the description of some advertisers as unidentifiable. The court also rejected the claim that surrender would expose Henn to punishment for acts that were not offences when committed, finding that the material did not establish a real risk of retrospective criminality or a higher penalty. The court did not determine the abuse-of-process objection, which it said did not need to be finalised at this stage.
The judgment records allegations in the warrant that Henn used false names to advertise jobs in Ireland between December 2010 and November 2011, sought fees or deposits, and did not provide the jobs. It also describes three separate alleged incidents involving borrowed money in Paks. These are allegations underlying the foreign proceedings, not findings made in this partial judgment.
The court directed the central authority to seek answers on the sentences, offence classifications and retrial guarantee. It also sought further submissions about whether assurances on prison conditions covered imprisonment under this warrant. The judgment leaves the final decision on surrender open.