Hegyi v Law Enforcement Unit of Veszprem County Court

Extradition will not breach Article 3 merely because an accused fears violence from private individuals. The evidence must show that the requested state cannot provide adequate protection against that risk. Article 8 does not require discharge where the consequences for a partner and child are insufficiently serious or materially greater than those arising during the appellant’s detention pending extradition. Controlled epilepsy and unspecified or non-urgent medical appointments did not establish a disproportionate interference with family life.

Two appeals challenged orders made by a District Judge requiring the appellant’s extradition to Hungary under European arrest warrants. The warrants concerned sentences for theft and for criminal damage, taking a vehicle without consent, and an attempt to do so. The appellant maintained that return would expose him and his wife to danger from a victim of his offending and that his wife’s epilepsy and hospital appointments made extradition incompatible with Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The delay and conviction-in-absence issue was no longer live. The remaining questions were whether extradition would expose the appellant to treatment contrary to Article 3 or disproportionately interfere with family life under Article 8.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The District Judge had been entitled to order extradition under both warrants.
2. The Article 3 claim failed. The appellant’s evidence about threatened violence from private individuals was uncorroborated and did not establish that the Hungarian prison estate or state authorities would be unable to protect him from cruel or inhuman treatment. The District Judge’s reasoning on this issue was impeccable.
3. The Article 8 claim also failed. The fact that the appellant’s wife had lived and worked in the United Kingdom for three and a half years and cared for a healthy child did not justify refusing extradition.
4. The additional medical evidence did not alter that conclusion. The wife’s epilepsy was controlled by medication and reviewed annually by her general practitioner. The hospital appointments were not shown to concern urgent or serious treatment, and one had been postponed. Nothing indicated that the appellant’s removal would create a greater risk to her than the period he had already spent in detention pending extradition.
5. Even if the additional evidence had been before the District Judge, extradition could not properly have been refused on either warrant.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeals against extradition orders dismissed.
• District Judge: ordered extradition on the warrants concerning the February 2008 offences and the May 2006 thefts; one other warrant was discharged.