The High Court has refused two applications to surrender Zsolt Mednyanszki to Hungary under European arrest warrants, finding that the warrants and subsequent information did not meet the requirements for cases where a person was convicted in their absence.
Mr Justice Paul Burns delivered the decision on 25 May 2020. The applications concerned separate warrants seeking to enforce prison sentences: one for one year and one for six months. The court heard the cases together because they involved the same parties and overlapping issues.
Under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, a person who did not appear at the proceedings resulting in a sentence cannot be surrendered unless the warrant indicates specified information about their absence. This includes whether they were properly informed of the trial or were represented by a lawyer they had mandated, and details of how the relevant conditions were met.
The first warrant incorrectly indicated that Mr Mednyanszki had appeared at the appeal hearing that resulted in the decision being enforced. Information later supplied by Hungary said he had not attended, and that a state-appointed lawyer represented him. The second warrant said he had mandated a lawyer to represent him. Hungary later clarified that the lawyer had been appointed by the state and that Mr Mednyanszki had not given a mandate.
The judge found that, despite repeated requests and replies, the required information had not been provided. The warrants and additional material did not establish that Mr Mednyanszki had been informed of the relevant hearings, had mandated legal representation, or had been served with the decisions and told of any right to appeal or seek a retrial.
Justice Burns refused surrender under both warrants because section 45’s requirements were mandatory. He did not decide Mr Mednyanszki’s other objections, which included claims concerning delay, family life, mental health and prison conditions. The judgment said those matters did not need to be considered and described its outcome as fact-specific and unlikely to be a precedent in other cases.