Janos Vidák v Regional Court of Budapest (Hungary)

In an extradition appeal under Article 8 ECHR, the court must reassess proportionality where material circumstances have changed since the extradition hearing. Time spent on bail restrictions, including a curfew, may be relevant to the public interest balance, but it cannot be treated as time served unless the evidence establishes that the requesting state’s law credits it. Early release must likewise be supported by a sound evidential basis; it cannot be assumed where eligibility is uncertain and release depends on discretion. The seriousness of the offending, the sentence imposed by the requesting court, fugitive status, family circumstances and delay must be weighed together. The public interest in extradition remained decisive where the appellant had not shown that he had served, or would probably serve only a short balance of, the sentence.

The appellant was wanted by Hungary under a European arrest warrant to serve the balance of a two-year sentence for theft and property-damage offences committed when he was 19. A district judge rejected his Article 8 ECHR objection and ordered extradition.

Permission to appeal was granted after delay because the appellant’s circumstances and the likely effect of custody, an electronically monitored curfew and Hungarian early-release provisions required reconsideration. Further evidence was obtained about whether the curfew would count towards the sentence and whether the appellant would qualify for parole. The central issue was whether extradition remained a proportionate interference with his private and family life.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court was required to conduct the Article 8 balancing exercise afresh because material circumstances had changed since the extradition hearing. On the materials available at the original hearing, the district judge’s decision disclosed no basis for appellate intervention under Love v USA.

2. Article 26(1) of the Framework Decision 2022/584 requires deduction only for periods of detention involving deprivation of liberty. A restriction on liberty which does not amount to deprivation, such as the curfew considered in JZ v Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź–Śródmieście, need not be deducted. Member States may nevertheless adopt a more generous rule, as explained in Marosan v Romania.

3. The evidence did not establish that Hungarian law entitled the appellant to credit for the period spent on a seven-hour electronically monitored curfew. The Hungarian judicial authority had stated clearly that no period beyond six months in custody would be deducted. The expert evidence described the position as unclear and referred to one exceptional decision which could not be shown to reflect standard practice.

4. There was also no sound basis for assuming that the appellant would benefit from early release. The evidence indicated that the early-release provisions might not apply because he had failed to begin serving his sentence on time. In any event, release was discretionary and depended on assessment by a penitentiary judge. The court therefore could not conclude that the appellant had served, or would probably serve only a short balance of, his sentence.

5. The custody already served, the lengthy curfew and reporting conditions, possible eligibility to apply for early release, the age of the offences, the appellant’s law-abiding life in the United Kingdom and his family relationships were relevant to the weight of the public interest. They did not outweigh the seriousness of the offending, the two-year immediate custodial sentence imposed by the Hungarian court, the fact that family life had been established while the appellant was a fugitive from justice, and the need to respect the Hungarian court’s responsibility for decisions on release.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Baraitser rejected the appellant’s Article 8 ECHR objection and ordered extradition.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed. The court conducted the proportionality assessment afresh in light of changed circumstances.