In the subsequent case of Tagijevas,142 prison conditions in Lithuania were raised again. The Court distinguished Tagijevas from the McGuigan decision in light of the evidence submitted, and found that it was not “satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of […] being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.”143 Furthermore, the court considered that the findings of other bodies and courts as to the inhuman conditions in remand prisons alone would not be definitive to satisfy the test which is whether the individual subjected to the EAW in that particular case is at real risk of being “subjected to inhuman and degrading conditions […] on surrender to Lithuania.”144 The jurisprudence suggests that each case will turn on its own merits, Edwards J was clear in McGuigan, that the case was decided on the particular facts and the strength of the evidence adduced. It demonstrates the cross-border reliance on the reports of Ombuds institutions and NPMS, and the thirst and interest of the Courts for current and reliable information on prison conditions. The Netherlands As regards the Netherlands, Section 11 of the Surrender Act, which is the FD EAW implementing legislation provides that surrender is not permitted where there is a justifiable suspicion based on facts or circumstance that the surrender would lead to a flagrant breach of fundamental rights. In the first years of implementation, some challenges to the EAW on the basis of fundamental rights were successful,145 since then no refusals have been based on fundamental rights concerns.146 Recently, a court in Amsterdam refused to decide on Hungarian EAW’s provisionally, due to poor detention conditions in Hungary.147 On the 26th January 2017 a Court in Amsterdam dealt with a case relating to a surrender request from Romania. In that case the Court specifically referenced the decision in Aranyosi and Căldăraru, the test of a real risk to inhuman treatment on surrender, and considered the requirement to seek further information from the issuing authority. In applying this test, the Court refused to execute the warrant as it had not received the information within the specified time.148 United Kingdom In Krolik v Regional Court in Czestochowa, Poland149 the Court relied on the presumption of respect of fundamental rights and held that a clear cogent and compelling evidence to the contrary would be required to have the presumption rebutted. An example where an individual subjected to an EAW was not surrendered on account of prison conditions was the case of Campbell. In that case, Mr Campbell faced extradition to Lithuania in order to be prosecuted for terrorist offences.150 On the basis of multiple findings of poor prison conditions in Lithuania, the High Court of Northern Ireland refused the execution of the request. 142 The Minister for Justice and Equality v. Tagijevas [2015] IEHC 455. 143 Ibidem at para 78. 144 Ibidem at para 20. 145 Weyembergh (2014) p.9 refer to RB Amsterdam, 1 July 2005, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2005:AT8580, and RB Amsterdam, 19 Aug. 2005, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2005:AU1314. 146 Weyembergh (2014) p.9 refer to these judgments: ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2013:5374, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2013:7540 or ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2011:BV0505. 147 For further information, see De Internationale Rechtshulpkamer (IRK), ´Voorlopig geen beslissingen over overleveringsverzoeken Hongarije´ (de Rechtspraak, 31 Dec. 2015) available at www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/ Rechtbanken/Rechtbank-Amsterdam/Nieuws/Paginas/Schending-mensenrechten-in-Hongaarse-gevangenissen.aspx. 148 Case Number 13/751069-16 RK/1510 Rechtbank Amsterdam 26 January 2017 Available at https://uitspraken.rechtspraak. nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:414&showbutton=true&keyword=%22RBAMS%3a2017%3a414%22. 149 [2012] EWHC 2357, [2013] 1 W.L.R. 490. 150 High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Lithuania v Liam Campbell [2013] NIQB 19. 39