Germany extradites Maja T. - under dubious circumstances
A non-binary person from the left-radical scene is handed over to Hungary due to a European arrest warrant. The authorities act in frenzied tempo, and a veto from the Federal Constitutional Court comes too late. The Night-and-Fog action of the officials raises several questions.
When Saxon officials order Maja T., a 23-year-old person with German citizenship, to prepare for extradition to Hungary in the middle of the night, her lawyer is immediately put on alert. By morning's dawn, he informs the authorities that he will file an urgent application with the Federal Constitutional Court. However, the officials hardly pay heed. T. is taken from her cell in a Dresden prison and handed over to Austrian colleagues early in the morning.
Minutes later, T. has left Germany when Karlsruhe issues its veto: Maja T. should not be handed over to the Hungarian authorities, as decided by the highest judges in Germany. A success for T. and her lawyer - but only on paper. At this point, T. is already in Hungary.
What transpired early in the morning of June 28, 1995, in a detention center in Dresden, is already being referred to as a judicial scandal by some. But what had happened? In collaboration with the Saxon Criminal Police, the General Prosecutor's Office Berlin transferred Maja T. to Hungary. The basis for this was an extradition request from the Hungarian authorities. They accuse the non-binary person of being a member of a terrorist organization, whose goal was reportedly to attack sympathizers of the extreme right. Specifically, it concerns an incident in February 2023. T. is alleged to have participated in ambushes on participants of a right-wing extremist commemoration march in Budapest.
"Shame on Germany"
The suspect was arrested in the previous December in Berlin and had been in pre-trial detention since then. Finally, there was movement in the case: The Regional Court of Berlin ruled the extradition of T. to Hungary admissible on Thursday. In principle, this would hardly be a reason for alarm. The Basic Law explicitly allows for the extradition of Germans for the purpose of criminal prosecution, and in this case, it appears to involve - presumably - the most serious violent crimes.
However, the criticism of the Berlin Court is immense. "We are shocked that a German court is now making real what is frightening to every rights-conscious person: sending a queer person into an openly queerphobic system like Hungary," says Angela Furmaniak from the Executive Board of the Republican Lawyers' Association (RAV). There is concern that a criminal proceeding against a non-binary and left-wing person in the Orbán-governed Hungary will hardly meet the standards of the rule of law.
## This assumption is not plucked out of thin air, as shown by the similar case of Italian teacher Ilaria S.
Criticism of the legal proceedings against the left activist T. before a Hungarian court was raised multiple times. The inhumane detention conditions also shocked the Italian public. In light of this case, Italy's justice system had recently rejected another extradition request from Hungary. The fact that now, of all places, the German justice system makes a different decision and "delivers people to autocrats instead of ensuring a fair trial in their own courts" was described as a "shame for Germany" by the leader of the Left, Martin Schirdewan.
"Night-and-Fog" actions by the authorities
In its decision, the Berlin Chamber Court did acknowledge that Hungarian politics should be described as "homophobic, transphobic, and misogynistic." However, this was not seen as an obstacle to the extradition of T. by the court. State interventions into judicial independence were not apparent, and Ungarn had guaranteed human rights-compliant detention conditions. For a possible prison sentence, T. should be returned to Germany anyway.
However, judicial assessments do not always align with the sense of justice of the public. Accepting these decisions is a hallmark of a rule-of-law state. Giving the affected person a means of control is also important, however. Particularly when the gnashing of teeth is particularly loud, a functioning justice security net is indispensable. In the case of Maja T., however, this is precisely the problem: On paper, T. had the opportunity to control the Berlin judges through an emergency application to the Federal Constitutional Court and even obtained a favorable initial decision - at least temporarily. However, this decision was effectively worthless in practice.
The decisive 50 minutes
The frenzied speed at which the authorities acted after the decision of the Berlin Chamber Court is noteworthy. After the transfer to Hungary was declared permissible on a Thursday afternoon, the Saxon officials retrieved T. from the cell that same night - around 3:30 a.m. T. was already in Austria by 6:50 a.m., and it is said that T. was handed over to the Hungarian authorities by 10 a.m. Between this moment and the emergency decision from Karlsruhe at 10:50 a.m., there were only 50 minutes. Or, put another way, it could have been a good 45 minutes that decided the fate of Maja T.
If the decision from Karlsruhe had come before T. crossed the border, T. would have certainly still or again been in the Dresden prison cell. An extradition against the explicit order of Germany's highest judges would have been unthinkable, making the legal situation clear-cut.
However, between 3 and 6 a.m. in Germany, you won't get a decision, as Richwin explains. "That's also clear to the authorities," he adds.
This complicated and unclear legal situation arose when Karlsruhe considered the possibility that T. might already be behind the German border. The judges not only forbade the extradition to Hungary but also ordered the return of T. to Germany. Berlin's General Prosecutor learned around 8:30 a.m. - a time when T. was still in Austria - that Karlsruhe was examining the urgent application against the extradition. This raises the question: Why didn't the German authorities wait for the decision and possibly stop the extradition in Austria? A spokesperson for the authority stated to ntv.de that they were no longer authorized to do so.
Authority: Could not stop extradition
"The influence of German authorities ended at 6:50 a.m. with the handover to Austrian authorities," it is stated specifically. The reason: Austria, as the "requesting state," was not Germany but Hungary in this case. Therefore, only the Hungarian authorities were capable of stopping the extradition. The Berlin authority assumes that Karlsruhe did not have this information "available."
Richwin doubts that the authorities' hands were tied in this manner. He is confident that they could have requested to wait for the Karlsruhe decision. To prove his assumption, he has already requested access to the files.
However, the questionable behavior of the authorities does not begin for the defense attorney in Austria but in the Dresden cell. "My colleague, Maik Elster, had already informed the officials of an urgent application in Karlsruhe," Richwin continues. Formally, this had no delaying effect, "normally, the authorities respect this notification and wait for the decision." But why this exceptionally happened in this case, he cannot explain.
"Tricks" of the authority?
Furthermore, there was no reason for the urgency of the authorities' actions, as Richwin points out. T. had been in pre-trial detention for six months - "there was neither danger of delay nor a deadline for extradition or an imminent trial start in Hungary." For him and his colleague, it simply looked like "an intentional attempt to prevent anyone from interfering in the extradition."
Five days after the delivery, not only T.'s defense attorneys are raising serious objections to the German authorities. The RAV and Amnesty International Germany also came to the conclusion that the LKA Saxony and the General Prosecutor's Office Berlin deliberately violated T.'s right to a fair trial. The Association of Berlin Defense Lawyers stated in a statement: "Tricks to prevent the calling of (Constitutional) Courts are usually known from countries that are not generally considered rule-of-law states." The case is also having initial, albeit small, consequences: Berlin's Justice Senator Felor Badenberg is to be questioned today in the Legal Affairs Committee of the Berlin Parliament about the conduct of the Berlin authorities, as reported by the newspaper "taz".
Little Hope of Reversal
If it turns out during the examination that German authorities have deliberately disregarded constitutional procedures and obstructed a decision by the highest German court, Germany would undoubtedly be facing a major judicial scandal. For Maja T., however, this discussion would currently be of little help. According to Richwin, T. is in detention in Budapest - "in the same prison as Ilaria S. was then, now in a different detention center". The hasty nighttime extradition "threw T. quite off balance", but there is contact with a Hungarian defense attorney.
Richwin and his colleague have little hope that the consequences of the hasty extradition action will be reversed soon. The decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court are of little use to T. beyond being mere paper support: "Hungarian authorities are not bound by them. And we can't just march into the country and enforce our court rulings." Currently, only the diplomatic level is being worked on. However, dealing with the Berlin authorities is not an option. Since it is assumed that the order from Karlsruhe has been executed, no efforts are being made to arrange for the return of Maja T., according to ntv.de.
- Despite the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany issuing a veto against the extradition of Maja T. to Hungary for alleged involvement in left-wing extremism, the person was still handed over to Hungarian authorities due to diplomatic processes and international agreements between Germany and Hungary.
- The case of Maja T. being handed over to Hungarian authorities for prosecution amidst left-wing extremism allegations has sparked significant criticism within the German legal community, with some calling it a "shame for Germany," given Hungary's reportedly unjust treatment of LGBTIQ individuals and left-wing activists.
- The Hungarian Federal Constitutional Court is set to review the case of Maja T. in the context of international diplomacy and left-wing extremism allegations, posing potential challenges for Germany in ensuring that the non-binary person receives a fair trial and is treated according to human rights standards for LGBTIQ individuals in Hungary.
