CO/5567/2012 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 2453 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday, 17th July 2012

B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE BEAN 
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
STEFAN LAKATOS
Appellant

v 

DISTRICT COURT OF PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr B Keith (instructed by Kaim Todner) appeared on behalf of the Appellant

Miss N Draycott (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
1.	MR JUSTICE BEAN:  The appellant, Mr Lakatos, appeals against an order of the District Judge that he be extradited to the Czech Republic.  The European arrest warrant in this case sought his extradition in order to serve the remaining sentence of ten months and 15 days of imprisonment of a sentence of 15 months imposed for six offences of theft.  The point taken by the appellant before the District Judge, and again through Mr Keith today before me, is that he says that he has already served his sentence in the Czech Republic and in effect the warrant is in error.
2.	The difficulty is that it is established by authorities such as Asztalos v Hungarian Court and Robert Thompson v the Public Prosecutor of Boulogne that where the European arrest warrant is clear on its face and contains the necessary information, this court is not entitled to go behind the warrant.  If Mr Lakatos is right in what he says, the proper forum before whom to raise this point is the District Court at Prague and not this court.  
3.	There were other points taken in the notice of appeal, but Mr Keith has sensibly recognised that they could not succeed in this court, quite apart from the fact that they were not raised before the District Judge.  So it does not seem to me that anything could be gained from the appellant's point of view by an adjournment, which is what Mr Keith asked me on instructions to do with this appeal.  
4.	The point about the sentence having been served was raised fairly and squarely before the District Judge.  The District Judge was asked to grant an adjournment but refused.  Eight weeks, in round figures, have now passed and there is nothing to suppose that conclusive or convincing proof that the arrest warrant is simply wrong could be obtained in the period of any further adjournment.  It follows that I must refuse the adjournment and dismiss the appeal against the District Judge's order.