I would like to help today and donate

Next
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Next
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
CLOSE
Case law

Ausl 301 AR 54/1

May 2017 - Germany

European Arrest Warrant, prison conditions

The Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe rejected extradition to Hungary as "currently not admissible" based on the fact that Hungary was not able to answer the questions posed by the Court satisfactorily, regarding prison conditions the requested person was to expect.
The questions put to the Hungarian authorities were in essence as follows:
- What prison facility the person was going to be sent to, both in pre-trial detention and after trial if found guilty. - Assurance that the prison conditions were in line with European minimum standards, - Description of the prison conditions of the named detention centres, especially with regards to the number of places available, the overall number of inmates, number, size and furnishings of the cells, sanitary facilities and food supply conditions, - Information whether it might be possible that the requested person, during his detention in Hungary, might be transferred to a different detention facility and if so, an assurance was requested that also this other detention facility would be in line with European minimum standards.
The Hungarian authorities were reluctant to provide specific answer, but only reported that Hungary had reformed its law regarding legal remedies of inmates against prison conditions, that they had renovated and extended prisons and built new ones, and that over 1000 new detention places had been created, so that overcrowding could be reduced, this was not enough to satisfy the Karlsruhe’s concern that there still existed a real risk that an extradition would amount to a violation of Art. 3 ECHR / 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, extradition was deemed temporarily inadmissible and the requested person was consequently released. In its ruling, the Court referred to the case law of the ECHR in Varga v Hungary, as well as to the Aranyosi/Caldararu decision of the CJEU, and to the judgment of 15.12.2015 of the German Federal Constitutional Court (“Solange III”).
 

If you are a journalist interested in this story, please telephone Fair Trials’ press department on +44 (0) 20 7822 2370 or +32 (0) 2 360 04 71.

Keep up to date

Receive updates on our work and news about Fair Trials globally

Activities in the following sections on this website are supported by the Justice Programme of the European Union: Legal Experts Advisory Panel, Defence Rights Map, Case Law Database, Advice Guides and Latest News. More information about our financial supporters is available here.