Key Facts
- •Atilla Norbert Lakatos appealed two extradition orders to Hungary for alleged fraud.
- •The appeals (Robinson and Heptonstall) raised Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (family life) arguments.
- •Lakatos claimed vulnerability due to Roma ethnicity and sexual orientation.
- •Judges Robinson and Heptonstall rejected Lakatos's claims, finding his evidence on sexual orientation implausible and untruthful.
- •Lakatos, representing himself, sought to add a new Article 8 argument based on a same-sex relationship.
- •Lakatos also raised new points about prison conditions and treatment in Hungary.
Legal Principles
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
ECHR
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life)
ECHR
Extradition proceedings must be fair and comply with human rights.
UK Law (implied)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed in both Robinson and Heptonstall cases.
Judges' findings of fact were unimpeachable. Lakatos's evidence regarding sexual orientation was deemed implausible and untruthful. The new Article 8 argument and other points raised lacked merit and did not justify reopening the issue.
Extension of time granted in the Heptonstall appeal.
To ensure all relevant evidence (from both appeals) was considered together, given the similar arguments and the late submission due to Lakatos's imprisonment.