CSABA NEMETH & Ors v HUNGARIAN JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES

In extradition cases involving alleged deficiencies in judicial independence, systemic and general material remains relevant at the second stage of the analysis. It must inform the assessment of the individual case, rather than being excluded or treated as irrelevant. It cannot, however, replace the required specific and precise assessment of the requested person’s personal situation, the nature of the offence and the factual context of the warrant. General deficiencies alone cannot establish a real risk of a flagrant denial of fair-trial rights. Where the alleged offences are ordinary and politically neutral, and the evidence does not identify a specific impact on the requested persons’ trials, the ground is not reasonably arguable.

Three requested persons faced accusation European arrest warrants issued by the Hungarian judicial authorities. They sought permission to appeal on the grounds that evidence concerning erosion of the rule of law and judicial independence meant that the warrants had not been issued by a judicial authority for the purposes of section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, or that extradition would expose them to a real risk of a flagrant breach of Articles 6 or 5 rights.

The court considered the issue in light of the earlier domestic authorities, including Wozniak and Bogdan, and the two-stage approach identified in L & P. The central question was whether the general material, considered together with the specific features of the prosecutions and the requested persons, made the proposed grounds reasonably arguable.

1. The court refused permission to appeal on the section 2, Article 6 and Article 5 grounds and formally refused permission to rely on the fresh evidence. The cases were finally determined by this court.

2. The applicable framework is a two-stage assessment. Stage 1 concerns evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies affecting judicial independence. Stage 2 requires a specific and precise assessment of whether, having regard to the requested person’s personal situation, the nature of the offence, the factual context of the warrant and relevant information from the issuing authority, there are substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose that person to a real risk of a flagrant denial of fair-hearing or fair-trial rights.

3. General and systemic material remains relevant at Stage 2. The court must begin from an informed starting point and consider the weight and implications of the Stage 1 material. It is nevertheless impermissible to bypass Stage 2 by extrapolating a specific risk directly from general deficiencies. A specific assessment of the individual case remains necessary.

4. The reasoning in Bogdan, although concerned with a conviction warrant, applied equally to accusation warrants. General or systemic material concerning Hungary could arguably satisfy Stage 1, but could not of itself satisfy Stage 2. Further material relating specifically to the requested persons and their prosecutions was required.

5. The requested persons’ Roma ethnicity formed part of the overall, intersectional picture but was insufficient by itself. The alleged offences were serious but ordinary and politically neutral. The expert evidence did not support the contention that deterioration in the rule of law would affect the outcome of these trials. Considering all the material as a whole, there was no realistic prospect that the Stage 2 test would be satisfied.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the court had given four earlier judgments in the proceedings, including [2021] EWHC 3366 (Admin), [2022] EWHC 224 (Admin), [2022] EWHC 273 (Admin) and [2022] EWHC 1024 (Admin). In the present judgment, permission to appeal on the remaining section 2 and Articles 6 and 5 issues was refused.