Marina Horvath v Central District Court of Buda, Hungary
[2024] EWHC 499 (Admin)
János Orsós v Dr Antal Gábor, Penitentiary Judge at the Pécs Regional Court, Hungary
12 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3089 (Admin)
High Court
A man was ordered to be sent back to Hungary to serve a prison sentence. He tried to stop it, arguing his family would suffer and he might be treated unfairly in a Hungarian prison because of his ethnicity. The court decided that while his family would be affected, it wasn't bad enough to prevent his extradition, and there wasn't enough proof he'd face unfair treatment.
Key Facts
- •János Orsós sought permission to appeal an extradition order to Hungary.
- •Orsós was convicted in absentia in Hungary for burglary, attempted burglary, and theft.
- •Orsós challenged extradition on several grounds, including discrimination based on his Roma origin, delay, trial in absence, prison conditions, and violation of Article 8 ECHR.
- •A single judge initially refused permission to appeal.
- •Orsós renewed his application for permission to appeal, submitting fresh evidence including his partner's pregnancy and concerns about family impact.
- •The fresh evidence primarily consisted of statements from Orsós' partner and sister, along with ECtHR materials.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise: Interference with family life must be weighed against the public interest in extradition. Exceptionally severe consequences are required to outweigh the public interest.
H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2013] 1 AC 338, [8]
Extradition of a fugitive requires strong counter-balancing factors to outweigh the public interest.
Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551, [39]
Children's interests are a primary, but not paramount, consideration in Article 8 ECHR cases.
Detention in less than 3m² of personal cell space raises a strong presumption of Article 3 ECHR violation.
Grecu v Cornetu Court [2017] EWHC 1427 (Admin)
The adequacy of Hungarian prison assurances, including the role of the General Ombudsman, has been extensively examined in previous cases.
Nemeth [2022] EWHC 1024 (Admin), Zabolotnyi v Mateszalka District Court, Hungary [2021] 1 WLR 2569
Section 13 of the Extradition Act 2003: To succeed under this section, the applicant must show a reasonable chance, substantial grounds for thinking, or a serious possibility that they will be punished, detained, or restricted in their liberty due to their race, religion, etc.
Extradition Act 2003, s.13
Outcomes
Renewed application for permission to appeal dismissed.
The court found no arguable basis for challenging the extradition order on Article 8 or Article 3 grounds. The fresh evidence, while impacting the family, did not reach the threshold of exceptionality required to outweigh the public interest in extradition. The claim under Section 13 of the Extradition Act 2003 also failed due to insufficient evidence of discrimination.
Grounds of appeal related to the non-admission of the full expert report dismissed.
The district judge's decision to partially admit the expert report was a proper exercise of case management powers. Even if the full report were admitted, the evidence would not have supported the appeal.
Similar Cases
Zoltan Veres v Pécs Regional Court, Hungary
[2024] EWHC 2790 (Admin)
Atilla Norbert Lakatos v Hungarian Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2898 (Admin)
Tibor Jozsa v Tribunal of Szekesfehervar, Hungary
[2023] EWHC 2404 (Admin)
Sandor Atilla Rumpler v The Regional Court in Budapest, Hungary
[2024] EWHC 258 (Admin)