The High Court has rejected a man’s challenge to surrender to Hungary under three European Arrest Warrants, finding no real risk that he would face inhuman or degrading treatment in prison. It also found that he would have one month after service of a decision to seek a retrial or appeal in one of the proceedings. The court said it could make a surrender order under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly on 29 March 2019, dealt with proceedings numbered 2016/196 EXT, 2017/341 EXT and 2017/356 EXT. In an earlier ruling on 2 November 2018, the court had rejected almost all of the respondent’s objections but sought further information about prison conditions in Hungary and the timeframe for seeking a retrial in the 2017/341 EXT case.
The Hungarian authorities later sent a document described as a “modified” warrant stating that the timeframe was one month. The respondent argued that the document should not be relied on, including because it was unclear how it had been modified. The Minister for Justice submitted that it was information provided in response to the court’s request, not a new warrant.
The court accepted the information as coming from the issuing judicial authority and held that it was a response to a request under section 20 of the 2003 Act, not a fresh warrant. It found that the information met the requirements of section 45, providing for a retrial or appeal within one month of service of the decision.
The respondent also argued that overcrowding and other conditions in Hungarian prisons created a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Hungary’s Prison Service gave an undertaking that he would be held temporarily at Budapest Remand Prison and then at either Szombathely or Tiszalök National Prison. It described prison conditions and said Irish consular and diplomatic staff could inspect detention arrangements on prior notice. The undertaking did not specify the precise living space he would receive.
The respondent relied on reports by Hungarian Helsinki Committee co-chair Dr Andras Kadar and information about past conditions and alleged breaches of assurances. The court considered those materials alongside the Hungarian undertaking. It found the evidence did not establish a real risk of prohibited treatment in the named prisons and rejected the challenge under section 37 of the 2003 Act.
The court concluded that surrender was not prohibited under section 16 and said it could make an order for surrender to a person authorised by the issuing state to receive him. The judgment records that the court could make that order; it does not state in this passage that the order was made.