The High Court has ruled that Zoltan Huba Henn’s surrender to Hungary under a 2016 European Arrest Warrant was not prohibited by the risk of inhuman or degrading prison conditions. The ruling clears the way for a surrender order, but the judgment does not establish that the surrender took place.
Ms Justice Donnelly’s judgment, delivered on 23 May 2019, dealt only with the remaining objection to surrender in proceedings 2018/69 EXT. A separate warrant, dated 19 June 2018, had already been refused in different proceedings after Hungary’s response did not clarify the sentences and number of offences for which surrender was sought.
For the 2016 warrant, the court had sought information about the prisons where Henn would be held. Hungary’s Prison Service undertook that he would be placed temporarily at Budapest Remand Prison during transfer and then at either Szombathely National Prison or Tiszalök National Prison. It also gave assurances about conditions and said Irish consular and diplomatic staff could inspect the prison on prior notice.
The respondent challenged whether the undertaking could be relied on and submitted evidence about overcrowding, cell conditions, monitoring and past alleged breaches of assurances. That material included a report by Dr Andras Kadar of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and accounts of concerns identified by Hungary’s National Preventive Mechanism. The court also considered reports of serious incidents at the named prisons, including an alleged killing at Szombathely that was the subject of a prosecution.
The judge accepted the undertaking as an assurance from the Hungarian Prison Service, transmitted through the Ministry of Justice. She found that it specified the prisons and described their conditions, although it did not guarantee a precise amount of personal space. The court weighed that assurance alongside the respondent’s material and the European case law, including the principle that assurances must be assessed in light of all available information.
The judge concluded that the evidence did not establish a real risk that detention at Budapest Remand Prison would breach the prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment. She considered the evidence about the physical conditions and occupancy at Szombathely and Tiszalök, and found no sufficient basis to conclude that detention there would create such a risk. The court also found that the serious incident at Szombathely did not demonstrate a pattern establishing a real risk to Henn’s life or bodily integrity.
The court therefore rejected the objection under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and held that surrender was not prohibited under section 16. It said it could make an order for surrender to a person authorised by Hungary to receive him.