Hungary

The requested person challenged a decision authorising surrender to Hungary under a European Arrest Warrant issued to enforce a sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment for fraud offences. The Supreme Court of Cassation held that an individual assurance guaranteeing at least three square metres of personal space did not dispense with an assessment of the nature and arrangement of cell furniture, including fixed furnishings affecting freedom of movement, and of the applicable detention regime. It recalled that compensatory factors may rebut the presumption of an Article 3 ECHR violation arising from personal space below three square metres only under a semi-open detention regime, whereas a closed regime requires that minimum space after deducting sanitary facilities and fixed furnishings. The Court rejected the separate challenge concerning execution of the sentence in Italy because the requested person had neither established nor specifically alleged at least five years of lawful, effective and continuous residence or stay. It quashed the surrender decision and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal of Perugia for a fresh examination of the detention conditions.

The judicial authority cannot rely on generic assurances provided by the Hungarian authorities where such assurances are not capable of guaranteeing compliance with the principle that the specific custodial treatment to which the requested person will actually be subjected must be made known. The decision must instead be based on the acquisition of “individualised” information on the detention regime.

The case concerned an execution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Szeged Regional Court for the surrender of a Hungarian national to serve a six-month custodial sentence in Hungary. The defence argued that surrender should be refused under Article 11 OLW because of alleged risks of ill-treatment and inadequate detention conditions in Hungarian prisons, relying in particular on recent CPT findings concerning Tiszalök and Szombathely. The Amsterdam District Court held that the requested person would first be placed in Szeged Penitentiary and Prison and later in Szombathely National Facility, but found no objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information establishing a general real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in either facility. The Court considered that the concerns identified by the CPT in Szombathely appeared to be isolated incidents rather than structural and fundamental deficiencies, and that the material detention conditions there were generally adequate. Since Article 11 OLW did not bar surrender and no other refusal grounds applied, the Court allowed the surrender to Hungary

Where the information concerning the nature of the European Arrest Warrant and the detention regime is insufficient, the judicial authority is required to seek further details from the judicial and prison authorities of the issuing State. Should the information provided prove to be lacking or inadequate, the warrant may be deemed unsuitable, potentially leading to a reassessment of the surrender request.

Hungary sought the requested person’s surrender under an execution EAW to enforce a final two-year custodial sentence for drug offences. The Italian Supreme Court held that, where accredited international sources disclose structural prison deficiencies, the executing judicial authority must request individualised information identifying the prison in which the requested person will be detained and the concrete conditions prevailing there. The general absence of an EU or national suspension of EAW cooperation with Hungary was not sufficient to dispense with that assessment, particularly in light of the 2023 CPT findings concerning overcrowding and degrading detention conditions. The Court therefore quashed the surrender decision and remitted the case for further inquiries, while holding that residence and family ties in Austria, rather than in the executing State, did not constitute a ground for refusal and that any transfer of sentence enforcement must follow the separate prisoner-transfer procedure.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Hungary against an Austrian citizen of Turkish origin sought for prosecution for attempted intentional homicide. According to the extradition materials, Hungarian judicial authorities alleged that the requested person attempted to kill another individual in Hungary on 25 June 2011. Hungarian authorities initiated criminal proceedings and issued:- a detention order;- an international arrest warrant.The requested person entered Türkiye and was apprehended in İstanbul on 12 October 2013. Turkish judicial authorities ordered detention pending extradition proceedings.Hungarian authorities transmitted an extradition request through the Turkish Ministry of Justice pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition.The Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Article 18 TCK.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- although the requested person had lost Turkish citizenship, he continued benefiting from rights granted to former Turkish citizens;- extradition should therefore be refused;- and Türkiye should exercise jurisdiction itself.The Turkish Court of Cassation rejected these objections. The Court held that:- the requested person had formally lost Turkish citizenship pursuant to a Council of Ministers decision;- the requested person was therefore not protected by the constitutional rule prohibiting extradition of Turkish citizens;- the alleged offence also constituted an offence under Turkish criminal law;- the extradition request complied with: Article 18 TCK; Article 6 ECHR; the European Convention on Extradition.The Court therefore upheld the extradition admissibility judgment.

The case concerned Hungary’s request for the extradition of Charles Zentai from Australia for an alleged war crime committed in Budapest in 1944. The Australian Minister had ordered his surrender after a magistrate found him eligible for extradition. The Federal Court held that the surrender decision was invalid. First, the material before the Minister showed that Hungary sought Zentai only for preliminary investigation: no indictment had been filed and no criminal proceedings were pending. Australian extradition law permits surrender of persons who are accused or convicted, not merely suspected. Secondly, the requested offence of war crime did not exist under Hungarian law at the time of the alleged conduct, having been introduced only in 1945 with retrospective effect. The Australia–Hungary treaty required the offence itself, not merely equivalent conduct, to have existed at the relevant time. The Court therefore held that the Minister had no power to order surrender.