Klenovszki v Regional Court of Law In Debrecen (Hungary)

In an extradition case involving prison conditions, a clear and specific assurance that the requested person will be detained in a named prison may defeat an Article 3 objection. Evidence of breaches in other prisons, or of temporary failures to meet minimum space requirements, will not ordinarily establish that the specific assurance is unreliable. The court applies a strong presumption that assurances from responsible authorities of Council of Europe or European Union states will be honoured. That presumption is rebutted only by clear, cogent and compelling evidence of a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The normative minimum of 3 square metres of personal space creates a strong presumption of an Article 3 violation, subject to the recognised cumulative conditions concerning the duration of any reduction, out-of-cell opportunities and the general suitability of the detention facilities.

The appellant had been convicted in Hungary in his absence and sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment. Following the issue and certification of a European Arrest Warrant, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered his extradition. He appealed to the Administrative Court, abandoning his Article 8 grounds and relying on Article 3.

Hungary gave a specific assurance that he would be detained at Szombathely Prison with at least 3 square metres of personal space. The appellant relied on evidence of unsatisfactory conditions in other Hungarian prisons and alleged breaches of comparable assurances. The central issue was whether that evidence made the specific assurance unreliable.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court accepted that the Article 8 grounds had no realistic prospect of success and considered the Article 3 issue.
2. The Strasbourg authorities, including Varga and Others v Hungary [2015] 61 EHRR 30 and Muršic v Croatia, treated 3 square metres of personal space as a normative minimum. As summarised in Grecu v Romania [2017] EWHC 1427 (Admin), falling below that minimum gives rise to a strong presumption of an Article 3 violation unless the reduction is short, occasional and minor, is accompanied by sufficient freedom of movement and out-of-cell activity, and occurs in generally appropriate facilities without aggravating features.
3. The court followed the approach in Horvath v Hungary [2015] EWHC 3018 (Admin), where an assurance that the requested person would be imprisoned at Szombathely was sufficient to answer an Article 3 objection. There was no evidence that conditions at Szombathely had deteriorated.
4. The evidence concerning breaches in other prisons did not undermine the assurance in this case. A specific promise to detain a person in a named prison was materially different from a general undertaking about prison conditions. Failure to honour the specific promise would involve an intentional act by the requesting state and would seriously damage its ability to obtain extradition in future.
5. Applying the presumption described in Ilia v Greece [2015] EWHC 547 (Admin) and Elashmawy v Court of Brescia, Italy [2015] EWHC 28 (Admin), the evidence fell well short of the cogent, clear and compelling evidence required to establish a real risk that Hungary would dishonour its specific assurance. The appeal was therefore dismissed. By consent, there was no order as to costs.

1. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Dennis Brennan ordered extradition to Hungary in a reserved judgment dated 27 September 2016.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed. By consent, there was no order as to costs.