In the matter of an arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom on the basis of the so-called Partnership Agreement of 24 December 2020, the decision by which the Italian judicial authority, granting a request coming from the foreign authority, orders the surrender of the person for the purposes of participation in the proceedings against him, does not violate the principle of proportionality set out in Article 597 of the Agreement, following an assessment of the seriousness of the facts and of the interests of the victim, in the event that, for the same purposes, procedural options less invasive of personal liberty have been unsuccessfully attempted. (In application of the principle, the Court considered proportionate the surrender of the applicant in order to ensure his physical participation, instead of participation by videoconference, in a trial for sexual abuse, the said person having left Great Britain, while the trial was pending, as soon as he had been released on bail).

The application in Italy of a custodial measure for the purpose of executing an international arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom, pursuant to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed on 24 December 2020, in relation to criminal proceedings pending before its judicial authorities, does not violate the ne bis in idem principle where, on the basis of the same warrant, a custodial measure has already been ordered by another State—namely, Poland—but the person concerned has in the meantime absconded from it. This is because, notwithstanding the existence of two enforcement measures relating to the same arrest warrant, only a single set of criminal proceedings is pending against the person in the issuing State.

Where, under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the need to secure the physical presence of the requested person in criminal proceedings appears, in abstract terms, compatible with the objectives of the cooperation instrument, this does not exempt the judicial authority of the executing State from carrying out the substantive assessments entrusted to it, namely compliance with the principle of proportionality. It is therefore necessary to assess the impact of surrender on the person’s family life, on the relationship with minor children and on their needs for care and protection, especially where the person is the sole parent of two very young children and there exists, in abstract terms, the possibility of securing the person’s presence by means of a video-link (excluded by the UK court not because such a tool is unavailable or prohibited under domestic law, but on discretionary grounds of expediency).

In the matter of a prosecution arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom on the basis of the Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of 24 December 2020, the optional nature of the condition of return to Italy in order to serve there the sentence eventually imposed, provided for under Article 604, letter b), of the aforementioned Agreement, results in a regime for Italian citizens that is less favourable than that laid down, for the analogous system of surrender under the European arrest warrant, by Article 19, paragraph 1, letter b), of Law No. 69 of 22 April 2005, as amended by Article 17, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 10 of 2 February 2021; therefore, in the absence of an express different request by the person concerned, the surrender is mandatorily subject to the guarantee of return and the relevant condition, where not contained in the challenged judgment, must be imposed by the Court of Cassation also “ex officio.”

Following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, relations between the two—the former having become a third country—are governed by a specific agreement that entered into force on 1 May 2021. Consequently, extradition procedures do not apply where the United Kingdom requests Italy to surrender a person accused of participation in a criminal association aimed at facilitating illegal immigration. In relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain, following the latter’s withdrawal (so-called Brexit), the European Arrest Warrant framework has been replaced—upon the entry into force of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement—by a new model of cooperation with an autonomous legal basis, namely that set out in Title VII of the said Agreement. This model provides for a system of surrender of requested persons substantially modelled on the former regime and, being self-standing, comprehensive and detailed, is directly applicable.

The withdrawal of the extradition request entails the revocation of real precautionary measures, with the consequent return to the rightful owner of the assets subject to seizure, given that—pursuant to Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959—the requesting State is not entitled to dispose of assets obtained through the execution of a letter rogatory that has subsequently been withdrawn. (In the present case, the Court quashed without remittal the order by which the Court of Appeal had ordered the return of the seized assets, limited to those not yet transferred to the requesting authority).