Patrik Bartos v District Court in Kosice (Slovakia)

In an extradition case engaging Article 8 ECHR, the court must undertake a fact-specific assessment of all affected Convention rights. It must carefully weigh the rights of the requested person, partner and dependent children against the public interest in complying with the United Kingdom’s international extradition obligations.

Family hardship, the welfare and medical needs of a young child, the requested person’s learning difficulties and mental health, and delay by the requesting state must all be considered. Those factors may nevertheless be insufficient, individually or cumulatively, to make extradition disproportionate. An appeal will not realistically succeed where the district judge has conducted a careful and clear balancing exercise and reached a conclusion open to the evidence.

The appellant challenged District Judge Zani’s order of 7 February 2023 for his extradition to Slovakia on alleged money-laundering offences. The allegations concerned conduct between March and August 2017 and were denied.

The renewed application for permission to appeal concerned Article 8 ECHR. The appellant relied on the effects of extradition on himself, his partner and two children, including a 15-month-old child with serious heart problems, the passage of time, alleged delay by the Slovakian authorities, and his learning difficulties and mental health. Permission had previously been refused on paper by Heather Williams J. The central issue was whether the district judge had materially erred in the Article 8 proportionality assessment.

1. The extension of time was granted because the appellant’s solicitor accepted responsibility for failing to serve the Renewal Notice on the National Crime Agency. The application for an extension of the representation order was refused.
2. The relevant Article 8 ECHR rights included those of the appellant, his partner and both dependent children. The assessment had to be fact-specific and required careful weighing of those rights against the important public interest in the United Kingdom complying with its international extradition obligations.
3. District Judge Zani had conducted a careful and clear Article 8 balance-sheet exercise. He considered the effects of extradition on the partner and children, the young child’s heart and related health problems, the family’s financial and housing circumstances, the evidence of the partner, and the time which had elapsed since the alleged offending.
4. The fact that the appellant had not been found to be a fugitive did not prevent the public interest in extradition from decisively outweighing the factors relied upon in opposition. The family circumstances, delay, learning difficulties, mental health and evidence of self-harm were not capable, individually or cumulatively, of making extradition disproportionate.
5. There was no realistic prospect that the decision would be overturned on appeal. The court was able to assess the concerns relating to learning difficulties, mental health and self-harm without a psychologist’s report. Permission to appeal was therefore refused.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Zani ordered extradition to Slovakia on 7 February 2023.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Heather Williams J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 4 September 2023 and refused permission to extend the representation order.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): Fordham J granted an extension of time but refused the extension of the representation order and the renewed application for permission to appeal.