The case concerns the execution in Italy of an executive European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the surrender of a person convicted of using a false instrument, the issuing State having consented to the sentence being served in Italy. The Court of Appeal had acknowledged the appellant's settled residence in Italy and the issuing State's consent to transfer of execution, yet refused recognition of the foreign judgment on the ground that, after dissolving the cumulative sentence, the penalty attributable to the surrendered offence (four months) fell below the six-month threshold set for recognition of foreign judgments. The Court of Cassation held that the appellate court had no power to unilaterally re-determine or increase the sentence set by the foreign court, and that the six-month residual-penalty threshold for recognition under Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA cannot be read so as to neutralise the optional refusal ground under Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA based on the social rehabilitation interests of a person settled in the executing State, where the issuing State has already consented to domestic execution. The contested judgment was therefore annulled and remanded for a fresh assessment of the refusal ground under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005, applying the principles set out.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the surrender of a Romanian national convicted, by a non-final judgment, of drug-related offences. The Court of Appeal of Naples ordered surrender, rejecting the defence objection based on the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Romanian detention. The requested person argued that the Court of Appeal had failed to properly assess several reliable sources, including statements from directors of Romanian penitentiary institutions, showing overcrowding and the lack of the minimum three square metres of personal space, excluding fixed furniture. The Italian Supreme Court held that the appellate court’s reasoning was merely apparent: it had relied on the general adequacy of the detention regime indicated by Romania, without analytically addressing the defence material that appeared, in abstract terms, capable of contradicting those assurances. The Court stressed that, where relevant defence sources have been duly submitted, the executing court must carry out a full assessment of all available information and, if uncertainty remains, seek supplementary information on the individual detention conditions. By contrast, the Court rejected the argument that surrender was barred because the Romanian conviction was not yet final, holding that the Framework Decision requires enforceability, not finality, of the conviction. The judgment was therefore annulled with remand for a new assessment of detention conditions.

The case concerned an execution European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for the enforcement of a final two-year prison sentence for aggravated theft and driving without a licence. The requested person resisted surrender, arguing that the Italian Court of Appeal had failed to assess documents allegedly showing stable integration in Italy and that refusal of surrender was required under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005 in order to allow the sentence to be served in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court held that, after Legislative Decree No. 10/2021, an appeal against a surrender decision may not be brought on grounds of defective reasoning, including alleged omission or misreading of evidence. In any event, the Court found that the requested person had not even alleged the essential statutory requirement of lawful and effective residence or stay in Italy for at least five years, which applies under the amended Article 18-bis. A post-arrest offer of employment was insufficient to prove such integration and, if anything, confirmed the weakness of the claim. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible and surrender remained ordered.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Court of Móstoles, Spain, for robbery and personal injury. The requested person was also in custody in Italy in separate drug-related proceedings and challenged the surrender decision because the Court of Appeal had refused to postpone surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005. The Italian Supreme Court held that the complaint concerned the discretionary assessment entrusted to the Court of Appeal when deciding whether surrender should be postponed to allow domestic proceedings to continue. Such an assessment, when supported by adequate reasoning, is not reviewable before the Supreme Court as a mere defect of reasoning. In any event, the Court noted that the Spanish proceedings were more advanced, since prosecution had already been brought and trial was pending, whereas the Italian proceedings were still at an early investigative stage. The requested person had also failed to identify any specific prejudice to his defence in Italy, relying only on a generic claim that surrender would impair his participation in the investigation. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court of Rostock, Germany, in criminal proceedings for breach of instructions connected with German “conduct supervision”, a measure imposed after the requested person had fully served a previous prison sentence. The requested person argued that, given his alleged integration in Italy, the measure and any future sentence should be executed in Italy, and that the custodial measure was disproportionate. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the argument based on residence, noting that no five-year lawful and effective residence in Italy had been alleged and that, in any event, the case concerned a prosecution EAW, for which integration may at most lead to the return condition under Article 19(2) of Law No. 69/2005. However, the Court held that the Court of Appeal had failed to assess the legal nature of the German “conduct supervision” measure, which was essential to verify double criminality. Depending on its classification, the breach could be comparable under Italian law to violation of an ancillary penalty, breach of special preventive supervision, or mere breach of a security measure such as supervised liberty, the latter not amounting to a separate criminal offence in Italy. Since that assessment had not been carried out, the judgment was annulled and the case remitted for supplementary information and a new decision.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court of Heidelberg, Germany, for the execution of a national arrest warrant relating to aggravated theft and fraud. The requested person challenged the surrender decision on the ground that the EAW did not expressly indicate the minimum and maximum penalties applicable under German law, as required by Article 6 of Law No. 69/2005, and argued that the Italian court should at least have requested supplementary information from the issuing authority. The Italian Supreme Court held that the omission of the penalty range in a prosecution EAW does not itself constitute a ground for refusal, since the grounds for refusal are exhaustively listed in Articles 18 and 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005. The Court further held that the EAW must be unequivocal but not necessarily explicit where the missing information can be inferred without uncertainty from the statutory provisions indicated in the warrant. Since the requested person had not shown any specific prejudice to his defence rights or any concrete risk of disproportionate or inhuman punishment, the appeal was dismissed and surrender remained ordered.