Two requested persons provisionally arrested in the United States on the basis of criminal charges pending in the United Kingdom sought release on bond while their extradition proceedings were pending. The Court held that foreign extradition proceedings are sui generis and subject to a presumption against bail, requiring the requested person to demonstrate absence of flight risk and danger to the community, as well as special circumstances warranting release. It found that the respondents’ extensive international travel, strong foreign ties and other evidence concerning their capacity and incentives to leave the jurisdiction failed to overcome the risk of flight, while the nature of the alleged offences and conduct during Romanian judicial supervision also supported a finding of danger. The Court further held that the challenges concerning probable cause, prior Romanian surrender orders, alleged lack of urgency and delay, and other circumstances advanced by the respondents did not amount to special circumstances justifying release, and therefore denied the motions.

The requested person challenged his surrender to Germany under a European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution for fraud concerning a rented vehicle, arguing that the offence had been committed wholly or predominantly in Italy and that supplementary information should have been sought from the issuing authority. The Supreme Court held that the place of commission must be assessed on the basis of the factual description contained in the EAW and that the executing judicial authority cannot reassess the merits of the accusation or the evidential basis supporting it. It further held that the optional territoriality ground for refusal is intended to prevent actual conflicts of jurisdiction and requires concrete indications that the executing State intends to exercise its own jurisdiction, such as pending proceedings or investigations. As no such proceedings or investigations existed in Italy, and the conduct was transnational in nature, the appeal was declared inadmissible and the surrender decision remained in force.

The requested person, sought by Romania under an EAW for the execution of a five-year prison sentence, challenged the surrender order on the ground that the information supplied by the issuing State did not sufficiently identify the detention conditions to which he would actually be subjected. The Supreme Court reiterated that, where reliable material indicates a general risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, the executing court must obtain individualized information concerning the prison regime, including the actual personal space available to the requested person. It held that the Romanian information, while describing possible prison regimes, did not clarify the number of prisoners sharing each cell or the usable floor space available to each detainee. The surrender decision was therefore annulled and the case remanded for a new assessment, while the separate argument based on the requested person’s alleged social integration in Italy was rejected.

A Romanian national challenged his surrender under a European Arrest Warrant issued for the execution of a three-year and four-month prison sentence for human trafficking, arguing that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his relationship with his seriously ill child, who was receiving medical treatment in Italy, and would expose him to inadequate detention conditions in Romania. The Supreme Court of Cassation held that the best interests of the child and the requested person’s right to family life must be assessed against the interests underlying execution of the EAW and do not create an automatic bar to surrender. In the circumstances, the continuing presence of the child’s mother, the possibility of maintaining remote contact and the lack of sufficient evidence that the father was indispensable to the child’s care justified the finding that surrender was proportionate. The separate complaint concerning Romanian prison conditions was declared inadmissible because it was insufficiently specific, and the appeal was dismissed.

The requested person was detained in Italy pending extradition to South Korea pursuant to an international arrest warrant and sought revocation or, alternatively, replacement of detention in prison with a less restrictive measure. The Milan Court of Appeal rejected revocation, finding that the risk of flight persisted because the requested person had no pre-existing stable ties with Italy and had sufficient means to leave the country. However, taking into account the personal circumstances documented by the defence, the absence of previous convictions and the availability of a stable residence, the Court held that continued detention in prison was disproportionate. It therefore replaced detention in prison with house arrest subject to electronic monitoring, with the replacement becoming effective only once the electronic monitoring device was available.

The Italian Supreme Court declared inadmissible an appeal against a decision ordering surrender to Austria under two European Arrest Warrants, the second of which added further offences allegedly committed after the first warrant had been issued. The Court held that the issuance of a supplementary EAW covering additional offences did not breach the principle of speciality, since the executing decision expressly covered the offences identified in both warrants and the requested person could be prosecuted after surrender only for those offences. It further held that written translations of the EAWs were unnecessary where the requested person had been assisted by an interpreter and had been able effectively to exercise his defence rights, and clarified that questions concerning whether the requested person was actually the perpetrator belonged to the merits of the criminal case rather than to identity verification in surrender proceedings. Finally, the Court held that the executing judicial authority was not required to investigate prison conditions in Austria in the absence of specific and substantiated evidence indicating a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.