Hungary prisons acknowledged to represent a systemic Article 3 violation: Fuzesi and Balazs v Hungary
It may be of interest to note that the “headline” Hungarian prisons case due to be heard by the Divisional Court on 24 May 2018 has been adjourned to 13 July following Hungary’s concession that, despite assertions of improvement, there remains a real risk of Article 3 violation for the Appellants if extradited to a Hungarian prison. Judges at WMC have accordingly been wrong in law and in fact to allow extraditions to Hungary to proceed without assurances since mid-2017.
Hungary has provided 3m2 assurances in these appeals. Whether that is adequate, or whether detention may only be at Szombathely or Tiszalök, will be the subject of argument on 13 July.
Practitioners with the conduct of other Hungarian cases will no doubt wish to consider bringing these developments to the attention of the court in any case where geography suggests the defendant may be held in or transferred to, any prison other than Szombathely or Tiszalök.
The Appellant Fuzesi is represented by Mark Summers QC and Natasha Draycott, instructed by Alison Fong San Pin of Lawrence & Co.
The Appellant Balazs is represented by Mark Summers QC and Jonathan Swain, instructed by Damla Ayas of Oracle Solicitors.
Other Extradition Case Studies:
Read more about Extradition cases that we covered here: