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.

The Italian Supreme Court declared inadmissible an appeal against a decision ordering the surrender of a requested person to Croatia under a European Arrest Warrant for prosecution, subject to her subsequent return to Italy to serve a domestic sentence. The Court held that the decision whether to postpone surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005 in order to allow the requested person to complete a sentence in Italy is discretionary and, where adequately reasoned, cannot be challenged before the Court of Cassation on grounds concerning the merits or adequacy of the reasoning. The requested person’s ongoing detention in Italy, the different procedural stages of the Italian and Croatian proceedings and her status as a mother of four minor children did not establish a reviewable violation of law. The Court also rejected as generic the complaint concerning the alleged late transmission of documents by the Croatian judicial authority and therefore upheld the surrender decision.

The Italian Supreme Court partially allowed an appeal concerning detention pending execution of a European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania. It upheld the lower court’s assessment that a concrete risk of flight existed, relying on the requested person’s lack of stable residence, employment and social integration in Italy. However, it found the reasoning insufficient and merely apparent as regards the compatibility of continued prison detention with the requested person’s serious psychiatric condition, documented history of hospitalisation, suicidal ideation and elevated suicide risk. The Court held that the executing court had failed to engage substantively with the medical evidence and could not simply assert that adequate treatment was available in prison. The detention order was therefore quashed insofar as it concerned compatibility with the requested person’s health, and the case was remanded to the Ancona Court of Appeal for a fresh assessment.

The Court of Appeal of Belize dismissed an appeal against the refusal of habeas corpus brought by a requested person detained pending extradition to the United States to face intoxication manslaughter and intoxication assault charges. The Court held that the absence of a transcript of the habeas corpus hearing did not render the appellate proceedings unfair, since no oral evidence had been received and the documentary record was sufficient for meaningful appellate review. It confirmed that, in habeas corpus proceedings arising from extradition, the reviewing court must independently satisfy itself that the statutory and treaty safeguards governing committal and detention have been complied with, while not rehearing the underlying extradition case. Applying that standard, the Court found sufficient evidence to justify committal, substantial compliance with the requirement to inform the requested person of his right to seek habeas corpus, and no prejudicial irregularity arising from the delay in providing the committal warrant. The Court therefore affirmed the refusal of habeas corpus and held that the requested person’s detention pending extradition remained lawful.

The Italian Supreme Court declared inadmissible an appeal against a decision ordering surrender to Romania under an European Arrest Warrant issued for the execution of a final prison sentence. The requested person relied on the optional ground for refusal based on residence in Italy under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005. The Court held that formal registration of residence is not sufficient where the requested person has not shown actual and continuous residence or stay in Italy for at least five years and where other indicators, including lack of stable housing, lack of Italian language knowledge, absence of demonstrated tax and social-security compliance and continuing family ties abroad, point against genuine integration. The Court also held that documents first produced in cassation, including evidence concerning the spouse’s residence, could not be relied upon to establish the required degree of integration. The surrender decision was therefore left in force.

The District Court of Amsterdam refused surrender to Italy under an European Arrest Warrant issued for the execution of a ten-year prison sentence. The conviction had become final following appellate proceedings conducted in the requested person’s absence, and the available information did not establish that she had been officially informed of the date and place of the appeal hearing or that her mandate to counsel extended to those proceedings. Despite several requests for supplementary information, the Italian issuing authority did not provide sufficient clarification to establish that the requested person had been able to exercise her defence rights or had waived her right to be present. As the statutory decision period was about to expire and there was insufficient time to seek further information, the Court applied the refusal ground under Article 12 of the Dutch Surrender Act and refused surrender.

The applicant, detained in Singapore pending committal proceedings pursuant to an Indonesian extradition request concerning alleged corruption offences, sought bail pending extradition proceedings, together with disclosure of documents and permission to rely on Indonesian expert evidence. The High Court held that the bail application had been brought through the wrong procedural vehicle and, in any event, that the applicant did not fall within any of the limited statutory circumstances in which bail may be granted to a fugitive under Singapore law. The Court also dismissed the requests for disclosure and expert evidence, holding that the underlying challenges concerning the Indonesian arrest-warrant documents were more appropriately addressed in the pending committal proceedings. The application was dismissed in its entirety, without determining whether the applicant should ultimately be extradited to Indonesia.

The requested person challenged an Italian appellate judgment authorising surrender to Bulgaria under a European Arrest Warrant issued for the enforcement of a sentence relating to bodily injury. The appeal relied, first, on the requested person’s alleged family and social integration in Italy and, second, on the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in Bulgaria. The Court held that the five-year period of lawful and continuous residence or stay required by Italian law is a mandatory prerequisite for the optional ground for refusal based on residence, and that the presence of minor children does not by itself preclude surrender where another parent is able to care for them. It further held that the Aranyosi and Căldăraru mechanism is triggered only where the defence produces objective, reliable, specific and duly updated material demonstrating a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment; generic references to prison overcrowding and an outdated CPT statement were insufficient. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible and the surrender decision remained in force.

The requested person challenged an Italian appellate decision ordering surrender to Malta under a European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution in connection with drug-trafficking offences and breach of bail conditions. The Court held that an EAW issued for prosecution does not require the executing judicial authority to conduct a prior full review of the underlying national coercive order, but found that the Maltese offence of breach of bail conditions lacked a corresponding offence under Italian law and therefore failed the double criminality requirement. It further held that, although stable residence in Italy is not a ground for refusing a prosecution EAW, where the requested person is stably integrated in Italy the surrender must be made conditional upon their return to Italy to serve any custodial sentence or measure ultimately imposed. The judgment was therefore quashed without remand as regards surrender for the bail offence and as regards the omitted return condition, while the remainder of the appeal was dismissed.

The requested person challenged an Italian appellate decision authorising surrender to Greece under a European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution for attempted murder and aggravated robbery. The Court held that the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment must be assessed also in relation to prosecution EAWs and requires an individualised examination of the actual detention conditions awaiting the requested person, including available personal space, overcrowding, time outside the cell, staffing levels and other compensating factors. It found that the appellate court had accepted the information supplied by the Greek authorities without sufficiently assessing whether those conditions complied with Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The judgment was therefore quashed and remitted for a new assessment of prison conditions, while the separate complaint concerning an alleged risk of discrimination connected with the requested person’s Kurdish ethnicity was dismissed.