CSABA NEMETH v HUNGARIAN JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES

Where an order contains distinct parts adverse to each party, each party may independently appeal the part adverse to it. That is different from a contingent cross-appeal by a party who has received a favourable order.

For extradition purposes, particulars may satisfy section 2(4)(c) where the warrant identifies the alleged conduct, victims, dates, amounts, participants and method sufficiently to enable the requested person to understand the accusation and protect specialty rights. Permission to appeal should be refused where, even taking updated evidence at its highest, there is no realistic prospect of a different Article 8 proportionality outcome.

This was the third judgment in linked extradition proceedings concerning Csaba Nemeth, Maria Lakatos and Maria Horvath. The court considered applications for permission to appeal against decisions of District Judges concerning extradition, discharge on one money-laundering allegation, and Article 8 ECHR arguments.

The issues included whether the Requesting State’s application was improperly characterised as a cross-appeal, whether the particulars in an accusation European arrest warrant satisfied section 2(4)(c) of the 2003 Act, and whether updated health, family and sentencing matters made Article 8 appeals reasonably arguable.

1. The Requesting State’s application concerning Mr Nemeth was properly within the court’s jurisdiction. The District Judge had made two distinct orders: extradition on most matters and discharge on one matter. Each party was therefore independently entitled to appeal the order adverse to it. That differed from the contingency-based cross-appeal discussed in USA v Assange [2021] EWHC 2528 (Admin).

2. Permission to appeal was granted on the section 2(4)(c) issue. The District Judge had treated the money-laundering allegation in EAW7 as an impermissible omnibus description. The court held that the Requesting State had shown reasonable arguability that this was wrong. EAW7 named the courier, identified the four victims, stated the four dates and amounts, and described the transfer of those monies through financial services to conceal their origin. Those particulars arguably enabled Mr Nemeth to discern the boundaries of the allegation and protect his specialty rights.

3. Ms Lakatos’s adjournment application was refused. The recent medical notes were taken at face value and at their highest. Nevertheless, even with further investigation and expert reporting, the evidence could not materially affect the Article 8 permission application. The strong public interest in extradition plainly and decisively outweighed the health, family and delay-related matters relied upon.

4. Permission to appeal was refused in Ms Lakatos’s case. The court accepted that the best interests of her sons and the unexplained passage of time could weigh against extradition, but concluded that those matters could not make extradition disproportionate. An operative presumption remained that appropriate medical treatment would be available in Hungarian custody.

5. Permission to appeal was refused in Ms Horvath’s case. The court took the expert evidence at its highest, recognised the importance of her son’s interests and considered the alleged offence in its wider criminal context. The seriousness of the offence, her leading role, victim vulnerability, planning, the suspended sentence and the substantial public interest in extradition made the Article 8 conclusion plainly correct.

6. Case-management directions were made for the substantive appeal on Mr Nemeth’s section 2(4)(c) ground and for the other pending permission applications. The cases remained linked, but the applications for permission in the Article 8 cases were refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Fanning ordered Csaba Nemeth’s extradition on all but one allegation and discharged him on the money-laundering allegation in EAW7; he ordered Maria Lakatos’s extradition on 8 April 2021 and District Judge McGarva ordered Maria Horvath’s extradition on 22 April 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): In the present third judgment, permission to appeal was granted on Mr Nemeth’s section 2(4)(c) ground and refused on the Article 8 grounds.