The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by Spain in relation to a robbery charge. The requested person appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Naples granting surrender, arguing that the warrant did not indicate the evidentiary sources on which he had been identified as one of the perpetrators and that the executing court should have assessed whether the EAW was supported by serious indications of guilt. The Italian Supreme Court held that, following the reform introduced by Legislative Decree No. 10/2021, the executing judicial authority is no longer required to assess the seriousness of the evidence or the sources of proof, but only to verify that the description of the facts is sufficiently capable of identifying a criminal offence attributable to the requested person. The Court also declared inadmissible the additional ground concerning the alleged absence of the original Spanish version of the EAW, holding that new grounds cannot be introduced before the Court of Cassation in EAW proceedings and noting that the arrest was based on the SIS alert and that the Italian translation of the EAW had been transmitted. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the French judicial authority for drug-related offences, money laundering and participation in a criminal association. The Court of Appeal of Venice ordered surrender and the requested person appealed to the Italian Supreme Court. He argued that the EAW lacked the information required under Italian law, that the evidence relied on by the French authorities was unusable because it derived from SKY ECC communications, that surrender should be refused because part of the alleged conduct had occurred in Italy, and that he was entitled to the return guarantee due to his long-standing ties with Italy. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that the EAW sufficiently identified the underlying national arrest warrant, the investigative material, the requested person’s alleged role, the relevant conduct and the applicable penalty; no supplementary information was therefore required. It also held that, after the 2021 reform of the Italian EAW legislation, the absence of serious indications of guilt is no longer a ground for refusing surrender, and that any procedural objections to the acquisition of evidence by the issuing authority must be raised before the French courts. As to territoriality and pending Italian proceedings, the Court held that refusal requires the actual and prior exercise of Italian jurisdiction over the same facts, not merely an abstract possibility or investigative interest. Finally, the Court rejected the return-guarantee argument. For a prosecution EAW, mere factual presence or long-term stay in Italy is insufficient: what matters is residence capable of supporting social reintegration. The Court found that the requested person did not show such residence and that the Court of Appeal had reasonably relied on his lack of lawful employment in Italy and on the commission of profit-driven offences in Italy. Surrender to France was therefore upheld.

The requested person challenged his surrender to Malta under a prosecutorial European Arrest Warrant issued in connection with tax offences, false accounting and money laundering. The Italian Supreme Court held that the executing judicial authority is not required to assess whether surrender is necessary or proportionate where the warrant is based on a coercive measure intended to secure the person’s presence for prosecution, and that the availability of less intrusive investigative tools does not affect the validity of the warrant. It further held that money laundering is one of the listed offences for which surrender may be ordered without verification of double criminality, provided that the conduct is classified as such under the law of the issuing State. Finally, the Court ruled that alleged inconsistencies in the amount of tax evaded and challenges to the evidentiary basis of the accusation concern the merits and must be raised before the courts of the issuing State.

The requested person challenged his surrender to Spain under a prosecutorial European Arrest Warrant concerning alleged participation in an organised group carrying out robberies of luxury watches. The Italian Supreme Court held that, following the 2021 reform of Law No. 69/2005, the absence of an indication of serious evidence of guilt or of the evidentiary sources supporting the accusation does not constitute a ground for refusing surrender. It clarified that the warrant need only contain the minimum formal information necessary for the executing authority to perform the checks assigned to it, including the nature and legal classification of the offences, the time and place of their commission, and the requested person’s alleged degree of participation. The executing court may not request the underlying precautionary order in order to reassess the evidentiary basis, and any failure by the issuing State to provide such information cannot justify refusal of surrender.

The requested person was subject to two prosecutorial European Arrest Warrants issued by Germany and Austria for organised aggravated thefts, while criminal proceedings and the execution of a residual sentence were pending in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court held that the decision whether to defer surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005 requires a comparative assessment of the interests involved, taking into account factors such as the seriousness and date of the offences, the person’s custodial status, the stage and complexity of the proceedings, any final judgment, the sentence still to be served and the likely manner of its execution. It found that the Court of Appeal had adequately explained why the seriousness, organised nature and transnational dimension of the offences underlying the German and Austrian warrants outweighed the Italian interest in the domestic proceedings and sentence enforcement. The fact that the requested person was detained in Italy did not make deferral necessary, since flight risk is addressed through precautionary measures whereas the purpose of a prosecutorial EAW is to secure the person’s presence for trial.

The case concerned the United States’ long-running request for the extradition of Kim Dotcom from New Zealand to stand trial on charges of criminal copyright infringement, racketeering and wire fraud. After earlier proceedings had established his eligibility for surrender, the Minister of Justice ordered surrender to the United States. Mr Dotcom sought judicial review of that decision and of the Police Commissioner’s refusal to prosecute him in New Zealand for equivalent domestic offences. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the decision not to prosecute Mr Dotcom in New Zealand was lawful and rational. His position differed from that of two alleged co-conspirators who had pleaded guilty in New Zealand: he was alleged to be the primary offender, he had not offered to plead guilty, and, most importantly, the United States had not withdrawn its extradition request. The Court also held that New Zealand law contains no general forum bar requiring domestic prosecution instead of extradition where prosecution in New Zealand might be possible. As to the Minister’s surrender decision, the Court accepted that, if convicted in the United States, Mr Dotcom could face a sentence substantially longer than any sentence likely to be imposed in New Zealand, potentially amounting in practice to imprisonment for the rest of his natural life. However, the Court held that the Minister had not erred in law or fact in concluding that surrender would not expose him to disproportionately severe punishment contrary to section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Nor was the likely sentence irreducible, since United States law provided mechanisms such as compassionate release and executive clemency. The appeal was dismissed and the surrender decision upheld.