Minister for Justice v Csiki (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, the Minister for Justice, applied for an order for the surrender of the Respondent to Hungary pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated 10th May 2021, issued by the Budapest Environs Regional Court. The EAW seeks to enforce a custodial sentence of 3 years and 6 months imposed on the Respondent on 29th September 2017 and upheld on appeal on 19th January 2018, with 974.5 days remaining to be served. The Respondent was arrested on 17th May 2021 following a Schengen Information System alert and brought before the High Court on 19th May 2021. The Respondent appeared in person at trial and was represented by counsel at both first instance and appeal stages. The Respondent opposed surrender on grounds including alleged incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and lack of clarity regarding the sentence imposed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent should be surrendered to Hungary pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.
2. Whether any grounds under sections 21A, 22, 23, 24, or 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 preclude surrender.
3. Whether the Respondent's medical condition and prison conditions in Hungary give rise to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to the ECHR.
4. Whether the clarity and sufficiency of information regarding the sentence imposed and remaining term to be served satisfy the requirements of the Act and the Framework Decision.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• Surrender is precluded under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 due to the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Hungarian prisons and inadequate medical care.
• The European Arrest Warrant lacks sufficient clarity or information concerning the penalty imposed, particularly as to the sentence to be served.
• The Respondent suffers from serious medical conditions including cardiac issues and a suspected thyroid cancer diagnosis, which may not be properly treated in Hungarian detention facilities.
• Previous experience of Hungarian prison conditions was poor, including lack of adequate dental and hospital treatment.

Applicant's Arguments

• The EAW meets the statutory requirements including the minimum gravity threshold and correspondence of offences under Irish law.
• No grounds arise under sections 21A, 22, 23, 24, or 37 of the Act to preclude surrender.
• The issuing judicial authority and Hungarian Ministry of Justice provided assurances that detention conditions comply with the ECHR and relevant European and international standards.
• Medical care in Hungarian prisons is adequate, with continuous medical care, prescribed medication distribution, and access to specialist treatment.
• The information provided in the EAW and supplementary materials sufficiently clarify the sentence and remaining term to be served.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court was satisfied that the Respondent named in the EAW is the same person before the Court and that the statutory criteria for surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 are met, including the minimum gravity threshold and offence correspondence. The Court accepted the issuing judicial authority's certification that the tick-box procedure under Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision was properly invoked for the offence of causing bodily harm. The Respondent's appearance at trial and appeal satisfied the procedural safeguards under section 45 of the Act.

Regarding the Respondent's objections under section 37 of the Act related to prison conditions and medical treatment, the Court carefully considered the Respondent's affidavit and medical evidence alongside assurances from the Hungarian Ministry of Justice and Prison Service. The Court found no substantial grounds to believe the Respondent faces a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or inadequate medical care if surrendered. The Court emphasized the presumption under section 4A of the Act that issuing states comply with the Framework Decision unless rebutted, and found this presumption unrebutted here.

The Court further found that the information provided in the EAW and supplementary materials sufficiently clarified the sentence imposed and remaining term to be served, dismissing the Respondent's objection on lack of clarity. Issues relating to credit for time served are matters for the issuing state upon surrender.

Overall, the Court concluded that no statutory or constitutional grounds precluded the surrender of the Respondent to Hungary.

Holding and Implications

The Court ORDERED THE SURRENDER of the Respondent to Hungary pursuant to section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Respondent will be extradited to Hungary to serve the remaining term of imprisonment. The Court did not establish any new legal precedent, instead applying established principles of mutual trust within the European arrest warrant framework and the statutory provisions governing surrender. The decision reinforces the presumption of compliance by issuing states with human rights standards absent compelling evidence to the contrary.