Minister for Justice and Equality v János Juhász

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Caroline Biggs
• Judgment Date: 24 February 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IEHC 191
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2021 No. 238 EXT.]

Between

Minister for Justice and Equality

Applicant

and

János Juhász

Respondent

[2022] IEHC 191

[2021 No. 238 EXT.]

THE HIGH COURT

European arrest warrant – Surrender – European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 s. 21A – Applicant seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent to Hungary pursuant to a European arrest warrant – Whether surrender was prohibited by s. 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003

Facts: The applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, applied to the High Court seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent, Mr Juhász, to Hungary pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant dated 24th of October 2017 (the EAW). The EAW was issued by Dr Huszti, Judge of the Budapest Central District Court, as the issuing judicial authority. The EAW sought the surrender of the respondent in order to prosecute him in respect of alleged fraud-type offences. The respondent objected to surrender on the grounds that: surrender was prohibited by s. 11 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended; surrender was prohibited by s. 21A of the 2003 Act; and surrender was prohibited by s. 37 of the 2003 Act.

Held by Biggs J that there was no longer any ambiguity about the nature and number of the offences in the EAW. In light of additional information, the Court was satisfied that the offences whether punishable under the 1978 regime or the 2012 regime were not statute-barred. The Court was satisfied that the presumption in s. 21(A) of the 2003 Act had not been rebutted. In all the circumstances, Biggs J was satisfied that surrender was not prohibited by s. 21(A). Biggs J held that there were no facts beyond the norm in the respondent’s case.

Biggs J held that the Court would make an order pursuant to s. 16(1) of the 2003 Act for the surrender of the respondent to Hungary.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Caroline Biggs delivered on the 24th day of February, 2022

1 By this application, the applicant seeks an order for the surrender of the respondent to Hungary pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant dated 24th of October 2017 (“the EAW”). The EAW was issued by Dr. Tünde Huszti, Judge of the Budapest Central District Court, as the issuing judicial authority.

2 The EAW seeks the surrender of the respondent in order to prosecute him in respect of alleged fraud-type offences.

3 The EAW was endorsed by the High Court on the 20th day of August 2021 and the respondent was arrested and brought before the High Court on the 10th of September 2021 on foot of same.

4 I am satisfied that the person before the Court, the respondent, is the person in respect of whom the EAW was issued. No issue was raised in that regard.

5 I am satisfied that none of the matters referred to in ss. 22, 23 and 24 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended (“the Act of 2003”), arise for consideration in this application, and surrender of the respondent is not precluded for any of the reasons set forth in any of those sections.

6 I am satisfied that the minimum gravity requirements of the Act of 2003 have been met. The offences are punishable by imprisonment or detention for a maximum period of not less than 12 months.

7 Section 38(1)(b) of the Act of 2003 provides that it is not necessary for the applicant to establish correspondence between the offences to which the EAW relates and offences under the law of the state where the offences referred to in the EAW are offences to which Article 2.2 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA) amended by the Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (“the Framework Decision) applies and carry a maximum penalty in the issuing state of at least three years' imprisonment. In this instance, the issuing judicial authority has certified that the offences referred to in the EAW are offences to which Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision applies, that same are punishable by a maximum penalty of at least three years imprisonment and has indicated the appropriate box for “swindling”.

Is surrender prohibited by Section 11 of the 2003 Act

8 The respondent submitted that it was unclear from the warrant how many charges he was facing and whether some, or all of them, had become statute-barred. In that regard, the warrant stated that the respondent faced one offence, yet referred to acts of a fraudulent nature on three separate dates, the 7th of July 2005, the 7th of March 2006 and the 9th of March 2006. Further, the warrant indicated as follows:

“If proven, the above act committed by János Júhasz gives rise to establishing fraud involving a substantial value, a felony contrary to Section 318 (1) and qualified subject to Subsection (5) (a) of the Act IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code and forgery of administrative documents a felony contrary to Criminal Code Section 274 (1) (c).

The punishability of the felony of forgery of administrative documents expired – with respect to the suspension of the investigations on 27 August, 2007 – on 27 August, 2010, so the investigation was terminated with regard to this offence.”

9 The Court took the view, that in light of the foregoing it was not possible to determine from the EAW which offences were statute-barred and, therefore, is was not possible to determine what offences the respondent faced.

10 Section 11(d) of the Act of 2003 states:

“11.—(1) A relevant arrest warrant shall, in so far as is practicable —

• (a) in the case of a European arrest warrant, be in the form set out in the Annex to the Framework Decision as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA,

• (b) in the case of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement arrest warrant, be in the form set out in Annex Law-5 to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and

• (c) in the case of an arrest warrant within the meaning of the EU-Iceland Norway Agreement, be in the form set out in the Annex to the EU-Iceland Norway Agreement. (1A) Subject to subsection (2A), a relevant arrest warrant shall specify–

• (d) the offence to which the relevant arrest warrant relates, including the nature and classification under the law of the issuing state of the offence concerned.”

11 The following Section 20 requests were made as a consequence of the lack of clarity in the EAW:

• • In a request for additional information dated the 4th of November 2021, the issuing judicial authority was asked to respond to the following:

  “Please confirm that the offences recited at part (e) of the European Arrest Warrant relate to the offence of ‘fraud involving a substantial value’ contrary to Section

  318(1) and qualified subject to Subsection (5)(a) of Act IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code. If any such offence relates only to the offence of ‘forgery of administrative documents’ contrary to Criminal Code Section 274(1)(c) please provide details of same.”

• • An answer was furnished by way of email dated the 4th of November 2021 which stated:

  “The offence ‘forgery of administrative documents’ expired before the issuance of the European arrest warrant, the investigation was terminated concerning this offence, therefore the surrender of János Juhász is only requested for the offence of ‘fraud involving a substantial value.’”

• • A further letter of request was sent on the 15th of November 2021 which stated:

  “Please expressly confirm that the offence of ‘fraud involving a substantial value’ contrary to Section 318(1) and qualified subject to Subsection (5)(a) of Act IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code, as set out at part (e) of the European Arrest Warrant, relates to the combined acts as particularised of 07 July 2005, 07 March 2006 and 09 March 2006 or is confined to the events of 07 July 2005.”

• • A response was received on the 17th of November 2021 stating the following:

  • “(i) With his act against property committed on 07 July 2005, János Juhász Jr. caused aggrieved party Porsche Bank Zrt. a damage of HUF 2,190,000.

  • (ii) With his act against property committed on 09 March 2006, János Juhász Jr. caused aggrieved party Pesti Hitel Zrt. a damage of HUF 13,300,000.

  • (iii) With his act against public confidence committed on 07 March 2006, which has already become statute-barred, the commission of his act against property committed on 09 March 2006 was made easier.”

12 In light of this information, this Court can determine that the respondent is to face charges relating to his alleged activities on the 7th of July 2005 and on the 9th of March 2006.

13 The issuing judicial authority confirmed that the acts involved allegations of fraud of a substantial value, contravening Section 318 (1) and qualified pursuant to Section 318(5)(a) of the Act IV of 1978, one count of felony of fraud causing larger damage contravening Section 373 (1) and qualified pursuant to Section 373(3) a of Act C of 2012, one count of felony of fraud causing significant damage contravening Section 373(1) and qualified pursuant to Section 373 (4) (a) of Act C of 2012.

14 In the Court's view there is no longer any ambiguity about the nature and number of the offences in the EAW. This ground of objection is dismissed.

15 Are the offences statute-barred?

In relation to the fraud of a substantial value offence contrary to Section 318(1) and qualified subject to Subsection (5)(a) of the Act IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code an explanation was sought from the issuing state as to how the limitation period had not already expired prior to the issuance of the European arrest warrant on the 24th of October 2017, in circumstances where the incidents occurred in 2005/2006 and the limitation was stated to be a period of 5 years.

16 In responding to the Section 20 requests on this issue, the issuing judicial authority indicated in a letter dated the 4th of November 2021:

“The statute of limitations was interrupted by the issuance of the European arrest warrant on...