Imre v District Court In Szolnok (Hungary)

An accusation European arrest warrant does not become a conviction warrant merely because the requested person has been convicted at first instance. The court must consider the law and procedure of the requesting state, including whether the conviction is final or enforceable. Article 15 further information is part of the statutory scheme and must be read with the warrant; it is not extraneous evidence. In a mutual-trust framework, the executing court may proceed on the requesting state’s statement that the person remains accused, absent contrary evidence or real ambiguity. A full appellate trial may preserve accused status. The court should generally presume compliance with Article 6 unless there is evidence raising a real issue.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Coleman on 2 June 2017 extraditing him to Hungary under an accusation European arrest warrant concerning an alleged blackmail offence. After the warrant was issued, he was convicted in absentia at first instance, but his appointed counsel appealed. Further information from the Hungarian District Court stated that the appeal remained pending, that the appellant was currently accused under Hungarian law, and that the appellate court would set a trial at which he would be heard and could adduce further evidence.

The appeal concerned whether the appellant had become a convicted person, whether the warrant was defective, whether sections 20 or 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 applied, and whether extradition would breach Article 6.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant was issued as, and remained, an accusation warrant. Its contents showed that no sentence had been imposed and that no trial had taken place when it was issued.
2. Further information supplied under Article 15 of the Framework Decision is admissible and must be read with the warrant. It is intrinsic to the mutual-trust scheme and is not extraneous evidence. Zakrzewski v District Court in Torun, Poland [2013] UKSC 2 did not require the court to ignore such information.
3. Caldarelli v Judge for Preliminary Investigations of the Court of Naples, Italy [2008] UKHL 51 showed that a first-instance conviction does not necessarily make a person convicted for extradition purposes. The relevant question depends on the law and procedure of the requesting state. The Hungarian court had expressly stated that the appellant remained accused, and there was no reason to doubt that statement.
4. The information that the appellate court would set a trial was understood as describing a full trial. It did not establish that the appellant could only give evidence or adduce new evidence without being able to test the prosecution case. The court was therefore entitled to proceed on the basis that Hungary would provide a fair trial under Article 6.
5. Tupikas concerned which hearing was relevant to the protections applicable to a person already convicted under Article 4a of the Framework Decision. It did not decide whether a person was accused or convicted and did not alter the conclusion in this case.
6. If the warrant had been a conviction warrant, the particulars supplied were sufficient. The required level of detail depends on the circumstances, and the warrant read with the further information identified the conviction and detention order. Any section 20 issue would also have been resolved against the appellant.
7. Since the warrant was an accusation warrant, the District Judge correctly proceeded under section 21A. No Article 3 or proportionality issue remained, and the Article 6 argument failed.
8. The extradition was solely for the blackmail offence. By virtue of specialty under Article 27, the appellant could not be required to serve the separate suspended sentence for embezzlement.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal from the decision of District Judge Coleman dated 2 June 2017, which had found the European arrest warrant valid and ordered extradition.