Tibor, R (on the application of) v Judicial Authority Hungary

For the purposes of section 2(4)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, a European arrest warrant may itself constitute the domestic arrest warrant on which it is based. A separate document is unnecessary where the issuing state’s law clearly permits the European arrest warrant to serve both functions. The warrant must identify the legal foundation recognised by the issuing state for its issue. The court must assess compliance having regard to differences between the requesting state’s legal system and domestic law.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Ingram’s order of 8 October 2014 requiring his extradition to Hungary under an accusation warrant alleging misappropriation in April 2008. The sole issue was whether the European arrest warrant complied with section 2(4)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, because it did not identify a separate domestic arrest warrant or judicial decision. The court considered the corresponding requirement in article 8.1(c) of the Framework Decision and the warrant’s statement that it had both European and national effect.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant complied with section 2(4)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Section 2(4)(b), read with article 8.1(c) of the Framework Decision, requires particulars of the domestic judicial decision or other enforceable legal foundation recognised by the requesting state as supporting the issue of the European arrest warrant. Louca v Germany [2009] 1 WLR 2550 established that the reference was to a domestic warrant, rather than another European arrest warrant. Artola v Sixth Section of the National High Court in Madrid, Spain [2013] EWHC 524 Admin described this as the jurisdictional fact or legal foundation on which the European arrest warrant stands.
3. The Hungarian warrant expressly stated that the European arrest warrant was also to be treated as a national arrest warrant. The issuing authority had therefore identified that Hungarian law allowed the same document to perform both functions. A separate warrant or document was not required.
4. The appellant’s submission that a separate judicial act or document was essential imposed an unjustifiably narrow construction. Extradition courts must recognise that the requesting state’s legal system may differ from domestic law. On the information provided, there was a domestic arrest warrant and the statutory requirement was satisfied.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Ingram’s order of 8 October 2014 requiring extradition to Hungary was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.