Hacker News Reader

Comment by icoder | Hacker News Reader

Yeah I think this basically answers this entire sub-thread

Hungary can send an EIO to France or Germany, and the consistent trend has been to reduce the ability of executing states to review these requests.

There’s a concerning trend of EIOs issued by Hungary being enforced in France and Germany? What would be an example of this?

This is the best I can give you off the top of my head, but look at which countries are the most active in eurojust :) https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/ar2020/data-annex

An LLM can probably find some better links though.

I think you might be missing the ‘concerning’ part. Which specific cases are concerning? I don’t find it inherently concerning that people can’t escape justice by crossing the Hungarian border, Bonnie and Clyde style.

Oh no, that's totally up to you. If you're happy with the courts in your country not being able to review the requests sent from Hungary, that's cool. Without transparent judicial review, how could we even know if the cases are concerning?

EIOs are subject to review by the recipient state. It seems that you can’t point to a single relevant example of a concerning EIO from Hungary.

"Subject to review" means little more than "is the form filled correctly?", it certainly does not mean second-guessing by the courts in the executing state.

Like, yeah, your EIO will be rejected if you don't tick any of the crime-category boxes in the form.

Too explicitly spell it out, op is saying here that if any one of the 27 countries in the EU decides you are breaking one of their laws, they can have 1 of the other 26 enforce an EIO.

Which would be perfectly fine if your local jurisdiction could still properly review those foreign requests.

EIOs are subject to a dual criminality requirement. So it’s not as if arbitrary Hungarian laws can be applied in France via EIOs. And of course, we all know this is not happening, which is why we get radio silence from the people who are ‘concerned’ about this whenever specifics are requested.

>EIOs are subject to a dual criminality requirement

Dual criminality requirement only applies to non-Annex D crimes. Which is... not many crimes. You seem awfully confident for someone so ill-informed.

>And of course, we all know this is not happening

How would you know that it isn't happening? EIOs are not public!

Annex D is a list of things that are crimes pretty much everywhere.

Not sure what to make of the claim that Hungary might theoretically be enforcing Hungarian law in France. It seems surprising that no-one has noticed any specific consequences of this that you can point to.

The EIO is mostly just a formalization and standardization of a bunch of ad-hoc processes that were already in place. Law enforcement agencies in different European countries do try to assist each other, on the whole.

What you're missing is the erosion of the ability of the executing states to say things like "hey this is sketchy, we think this crime might not have happened", "hey the police department in this particular city is notoriously untrustworthy", or "hey this prosecutor is widely known in the local press to be corrupt and owns a collection of ferraris".

Now foreign authorities are trusted by default and significant parts of their reasoning are not subject to review, that's bad.

So provide some concrete examples of what you’re talking about, if it’s a real concern.

You understand that these aren't typically public, right? There's not any particularly good mechanism to discover abuse in this system in the first place, because the checks and balances are largely left to the requesting state.

Where are search warrants issued via public proceedings? You could make the same point about any jurisdiction.

Also, account first created in 2021, coincidentally starts posting right after the other account in this thread is replaced with a green account?

>Where are search warrants issued via public proceedings? You could make the same point about any jurisdiction.

It's different though, typically you can fight those warrants after the fact, with EIOs you have to do the fighting in a jurisdiction you don't live in.

This is all deeply problematic because things like "probable cause" have very different meanings in different EU countries, even if on paper it's all supposed to be the same.

>Also, account first created in 2021, coincidentally starts posting right after the other account in this thread is replaced with a green account?

Certainly not a coincidence.

Maybe stick to one account? It’s confusing for the rest of us, if nothing else.

You are determined not to point to any specific examples and you keep switching to different abstract arguments. For example, you’ve now dropped the point about EIOs being non-public in some sort of allegedly sinister way, and are raising a different set of equally irrelevant abstract points.

>you’ve now dropped the point about EIOs being non-public in some sort of allegedly sinister way

Nonsense, I told you that EIOs are non-public after you repeatedly insisted on examples of them being abused. I did not suggest that there's anything sinister about them being non-public. The sinister part is outsourcing warrants to other countries. I can't trust that the French legal system will protect me in France anymore because now I also have to trust the Hungarian legal system, that's bad.

Frankly, it seems silly to debate about whether or not these systems are being abused when we know that Poland has historically issued one third of all EAWs.

Sure, those EIO will be held if Hungary starts applying EIO that it got (e.g. for former Ministry of Justice of Poland which awaits trail, he sits comfortably in Hungary).

Let's hope elections there will change Orban into something saner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com