Top German court says extradition of non-binary suspect to Hungary was unlawful
BERLIN, Feb 6 (Reuters) - Germany's Constitutional Court ruled on Thursday that it had been unlawful to extradite a German citizen who identifies as non-binary to Hungary, upholding her argument that the decision violated the European Union's Charter on Fundamental Rights.
Under Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Hungary has introduced anti-LGBTQ+ policies, including laws that Brussels says discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The person, identified by German media only as Maja T., is accused in Hungary of attacking suspected far-right sympathisers in Budapest in February 2023.
The defendant is currently being held in a Hungarian jail after being arrested in Berlin in December 2023 on a European arrest warrant at Hungary's behest. The defendant was transferred to Hungary before the Constitutional Court could stop it with an injunction.
In Thursday's ruling, Germany's top court upheld the defendant's appeal on the basis of Article 4 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, which states that no one will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
"The constitutional complaint is successful," the ruling said, adding that the court which had allowed the extradition to go ahead had not sufficiently clarified the circumstances of detention that awaited the complainant in Hungary.
Authorities in Hungary - an EU member but which has clashed with Brussels on a range of issues including LGBT rights and the rule of law - have given assurances that non-binary people are not subject to discrimination or violence in prisons there.
It was not immediately clear whether Germany would ask Hungary to return its citizen.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump 'gold card' is open for business. Waitlist is open
Trump has said that he is not seeking approval from Congress as he is not providing gold card buyers with citizenship - only a path to citizenship. The path to citizenship requirements for card buyers are unclear and White House officials have said more details will be provided soon. The most common path to U.S. citizenship through naturalization is being a lawful permanent resident for at least five years. It requires the applicant to be least 18 years old when they apply, be able to read, write, and speak basic English (depending on age) and be of "good moral character." Trump has described the card, which he has also dubbed the Trump card, as "somewhat like a green card, but at a higher level of sophistication." "FOR FIVE MILLION $DOLLARS, THE TRUMP CARD IS COMING!," President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social on June 11. "Thousands have been calling and asking how they can sign up to ride a beautiful road in gaining access to the Greatest Country and Market anywhere in the World." The website shows an image of the gold-colored card, emblazoned with a likeness of Trump's face, and asks a few questions including name, region, email address and if an applicant is applying for themselves or as a business. The new website asks interested people to fill out a form that specifies eight regions: Europe, Asia (including Middle East), North America, Oceania, Central America, South America, Caribbean and Africa. Other countries also offer immigration programs that offers permanent residency or citizenship to foreign investors in exchange for investment. Portugal, for example, offers residency and a path to EU citizenship after five years. When he first floated the idea in February, Trump said the card would replace the "EB-5" immigrant investor green card visa program, The EB-5 visa allows immigrant investors the option to invest between $800,000 and $1.05 million to obtain a green card. The investment money is used to help create or preserve U.S. jobs. "Wealthy people will be coming into our country by buying this card," Trump said in February. "They'll be wealthy, and they'll be successful, and they'll be spending a lot of money, and paying a lot of taxes and employing a lot of people." "It's a road to citizenship for people and essentially people of wealth or people of great talent where people of wealth pay for those people of talent to get in," he said. Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is a White House correspondent for USA TODAY. You can follow her on X @SwapnaVenugopal
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Donald Trump is reshaping democracy for authoritarians
It depicts US president Donald Trump as a firefighter arriving at an emergency scene somewhere – most likely Los Angeles – declaring: 'I'm here to put out the fire.' Facing off against him is a lone US citizen who duly points out to the firefighter that what, in fact, he's carrying is not a water hose but a flamethrower. To say that it encapsulates what is happening in Los Angeles right now would be an understatement, for the United States is changing in ways rarely seen before. READ MORE: SNP minister responds to 'secret meeting to discuss John Swinney leadership' reports Some, rightly, will argue it was ever going to be thus after the last US presidential election, and Trump was unleashed by the American people on themselves. In retrospect, doubtless some Americans regret electing Trump now that they see him set about the nation, brandishing every available tool or weapon capable of causing division or harm. 'Chainsaw' or 'flamethrower,' these have become Trump's weapons of choice in reshaping his country's democracy in tandem with imposing a blueprint of authoritarian rule. Yes, Trump has insisted that sending in federal troops is aimed at restoring calm or 'putting out the fire' of radical 'left-wing' agitators. He's even suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to quell the protesters in Los Angeles. But the real insurrection here – as back in January 2021 – is one ignited by Trump himself. There is a familiar even deeper historical pattern emerging here too, one that I was reminded of while watching a repeat on BBC4 recently of the landmark series, Rise Of The Nazis. As one newspaper review of the original series aired back in 1999 rightly noted, it served as a lesson in 'how easily – and petrifyingly quickly – a democratic country can move to a totalitarian dictatorship'. (Image: Evelyn Hockstein, REUTERS) Those who say such an observation is nothing but hyperbole in relation to America right now, need to think again. For watching the Rise Of The Nazis is to recall the ease with which propaganda, economic exploitation, and political manipulation came together and were harnessed for authoritarian rule. Trump like Hitler – and all those with authoritarian tendencies – know the political value in triggering those same tendencies among supporters by presenting them with a perceived threat to their shared way of life. Just as the Nazis manufactured crises to work to their advantage, so too does the Trump administration. Right now, the federal intervention in the US – again like 1930s Germany – is aimed at creating a showdown by painting a picture of a threat of disorder to the country at large. In Los Angeles, the template being deployed was outlined succinctly this week in The Economist magazine and goes as follows. First, 'announce an immigration crackdown on a city whose leadership does not want it, wait for protests, then call in the troops to put down the protesters. Cracking heads serves as a warning to other cities that might resist. It is also a signal to MAGA loyalists that Trump is doing what they elected him for'. (Image: MARK FELIX, AFP /AFP via Getty Images) Trump then is increasingly keen on using the military to quell protests against his policies. Sound familiar? 'We're gonna have troops everywhere,' he said, when asked about the situation in Los Angeles. And that's just the start, for Americans will see lots more US military personnel and weaponry on the streets of Washington this weekend as parades marking the US Army's 250th anniversary get underway. That there are echoes here of the Nuremberg rallies of 30s Nazi Germany has not been lost on many. The deployment of federal troops and US Marines in Los Angeles aside, we've also seen paratroopers drop from the sky with Trump giving a partisan encore speech to troops at Fort Bragg. This weekend it will culminate in a 'big beautiful' parade to coincide with the 'great leader's' birthday that will make last month's Victory Day parade in Moscow look quaint by comparison. Only the most blinkered could fail to see what Trump is doing here. This, after all, is a president with whom the US military has by and large had little truck until now. Trump's timely diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that led to his medical exemption from the military during Vietnam never did him any favours in the eyes of many veterans. His unwillingness to recognise their sacrifice in fighting fascism in the Second World War led also to that infamous remark that Europe's military cemeteries 'were filled with losers'. But now, for Trump, it's time to think again, for that's what despots and dictators do when they need the military onside. All this wooing of America's armed forces with false praise allows Trump to make a point of showing executive force he always coveted but could only dream of during his first term. Admittedly, not everyone is convinced by Trump's newfound 'celebration' of America's military might, with reports that US veterans are split over their president's true motives. While some see it as a thing to be proud of, others remain wary of Trump's manipulation of it for his own political ends. Which takes me back to events unfolding in Los Angeles, for here the devil lies in the detail. That detail is how Trump's administration has cited a provision in the armed forces code allowing the president to put National Guard members under federal control when there is a 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion' against the authority of the US government. It's almost as if Trump and his cabal know what's coming with regard to America's future as they cynically seek to expand the powers of his presidency by riding roughshod over America's political system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Some might say so what? Trump, they argue, was elected democratically by a sweeping majority. But so too have other leaders who went on to consolidate authoritarian regimes. Back in 1930, while appearing before a constitutional court, Adolf Hitler brazenly informed the court that once he had achieved power through legal means, he intended to shape the government as he saw fit. 'So, only through constitutional means?' a judge asked, to which Hitler's now infamous sharp reply was, 'Jawohl'. Yes indeed. Just as Germany transformed politically in the 1930s before the world's eyes, likewise the momentum in America's shift toward authoritarian rule is accelerating by the day. It's high time we sat up and took notice of just what that could mean for us all.
Spectator
7 hours ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
