Mezei v Debrecen Regional Court (Hungary)

In an extradition appeal, fairness requires an adjournment where the appellant has not had a proper opportunity to discuss relevant issues and give instructions to counsel. The court should nevertheless ensure that the appeal is heard as soon as practicable by vacating and promptly relisting the hearing.

The appellant’s extradition appeal had been listed for hearing. Due to errors by the appellant’s solicitor, counsel received notice of the hearing only shortly before the listed date. Counsel then discovered that the appellant had been transferred between prisons and was unable to consult him because no suitable video-conferencing facilities were available.

Counsel needed instructions on a possible stay application and matters relevant to an Article 8 ground of challenge. The issue was whether the hearing could fairly proceed without that opportunity for consultation.

1. The hearing could not fairly proceed. The appellant had not had a proper opportunity to discuss relevant matters with counsel and give instructions, including on a possible stay application and an Article 8 ground of challenge.
2. The court treated the failures in communication and prison arrangements as unsatisfactory, but the immediate question was whether the appellant had received a fair opportunity to prepare and present his appeal. He had not.
3. The hearing was therefore adjourned. The court directed that the appeal be heard as soon as possible, with the precise relisting date to be specified after consultation with the Administrative Court Office.

The judgment records an extradition appeal listed before the Administrative Court. The appeal was adjourned because the appellant had not been able to consult counsel and provide necessary instructions. It was directed to be relisted at an early date.