EAW to Italy: enforcement of a sentence rejected as the proceedings were not adversarial

Share this case

Keywords / Topics

🇬🇧 Summary

The proceedings sentencing the requested individual were not adversarial. The requested individual was not present at the appeal hearing regarding his case. He was not represented by a lawyer and did not receive personal service of the judgment.He was also not informed of multiple proceedings conducted between 2011 and 2017. Although the requested individual became aware of the aforementioned decisions in 2017, the last mean of appeal available is before the Court of Cassation which rules on points of law but not on the facts.The extradition request is rejected on optional grounds for refusal.

Cite this case

Need to reference this case in a brief, article or submission?

Legislation

Articles 695-11 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure

CJEU References

Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States

Full text (anonymised):

JUDGMENT RULING ON THE APPLICATION FOR THE SURRENDER OF X. Y.
delivered in open court on 28 June 2023 and granting the surrender sought pursuant to the execution of the European arrest warrant issued on 9 July 2019 against:

X. Y.
born on XXX in XXX
son of XXX
of American nationality
residing at XXX
placed under judicial supervision by order of 30 May 2023

represented by Maître Etienne ARNAUD and Maître Jean DECONINCK, solicitors at the Paris Bar and by Mr ELABED, English-language interpreter, an adult who swore an oath to assist the Court in good faith and to the best of his knowledge in accordance with Article 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT during the hearing and deliberations:
Mr MORGAN, President
Ms RAGON, Judge
Mr BECKERS, Vice-President acting as a Judge
The person concerned the Registrar all three appointed in accordance with Article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Upon delivery of the judgment, Mr MORGAN, President, read out the judgment in accordance with the provisions of Article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
REGISTRAR:
Mr COURTOIS, at the hearing and at the delivery of the judgment
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR represented at the hearing by Mr THIBAULT, Advocate General, and at the delivery of the judgment by Ms LEHAITRE, Deputy Advocate General HEARING:

At the public hearing on 21 June 2023, the following were heard:
– X. Y.
– Mr BECKERS, Vice-President acting as a judge, in his report,
– Mr THIBAULT, Advocate General, in his submissions,
– Mr ARNAUD and Mr DECONINCK, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant himself, who was
the last to speak, in their observations.

The respondent was assisted by Mr ELBED, an English-language interpreter, an adult who had taken an oath to assist the court, in good faith and to the best of his knowledge, in accordance with Article 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The case was reserved for judgment, to be delivered at the hearing on 28 June 2023.

SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE FACTS:
*Regarding the European arrest warrant, the facts underlying it and the character of the person concerned.
On 29 May 2023, officers of the National Police’s Border Police Directorate at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport arrested X. Y., an American national, upon his arrival from London due to the issue of a European Arrest Warrant against him by the Italian judicial authorities, in the following terms:

– Pursuant to a European arrest warrant dated 9 July 2019, issued by Dr.ssa Marina NUCCIO, Deputy Public Prosecutor at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic at the Court of Appeal of Turin,
– On the basis of a decision of the Court of Appeal of Turin dated 23 January 2013 (Italian case number: Sentenza n. 264/2013 e n. 1196/2012 RG. App.) partially overturning a decision of the Court of Ivrea dated 11 July 2007, which became final on 29 March 2018, and on the basis of an order for imprisonment issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Appeal of Turin dated 24 January 2019 (Italian case number 227/18), the European arrest warrant stating that the person concerned was not present at the trial leading to the decision and that he “has not been personally served with the decision, but will be served personally without delay following surrender and, at the time of service of the decision, will be expressly informed of his right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which the person concerned has the right to participate and (which) allows for a review of the case on its merits, taking into account new evidence, and may result in a review of the original decision”, a right to be exercised within thirty days of the personal service of the decision.
– For the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed for the offences of aggravated fraudulent bankruptcy committed in concert and aggravated fraudulent bankruptcy committed in concert; offences committed on 12 May 1999 in Ivrea.
– and provided for and punishable under Article 110 of the Italian Criminal Code, and Article 216(1)(II) paragraph 1, and 219, paragraphs 1 and 2, No. I of Royal Decree 267/1942.
– it being specified that the remaining sentence to be served is two years’ imprisonment, after deduction of a partial amnesty of the sentence granted by Law 241/ 2006.

The facts were summarised as follows in the European Arrest Warrant: together with four other persons, whilst he was a member of the board of directors of the company ‘OP COMPUTERS S.p.A’, a company declared bankrupt by a court order of the Court of Ivrea dated 12 May 1999, X. Y. had authorised a transfer, on 24 April 1998, of an amount of nearly 32 million Italian lire to the company ‘OCW International BV’ even though the latter company owed several sums of a significantly higher amount to “OP COMPUTERS S.p.A.” In particular, several loans granted by “OP COMPUTERS S.p.A.” and having reached maturity had not been repaid by “OCS International BV . The European Arrest Warrant also specified that the conviction had been handed down because X. Y. and his four co-defendants had failed to take the necessary steps to secure payment from “OCW International BV , of its financial obligations in return for services provided by the company “OP COMPUTERS S.p.A”, having instead continued to supply it with computer equipment whilst aware of its persistent difficulties in meeting its own obligations. Consequently, the total debt accrued by the company “OCW International BV” to the detriment of the company “OP COMPUTERS S.p.A” amounts to 230 billion Italian lire.

During the period of his judicial detention, X. Y., aged 85, stated that he was married, the father of a child no longer dependent on him, and still working. He further stated that he had come to France for a business meeting and was due to return to London that very evening, according to supporting documentation in the case file, and then to the United States a few days later.
Regarding the facts forming the basis of the European arrest warrant, X. Y. added that he was aware of them, having already been held in police custody in the United Kingdom in December 2019, following which the British courts decided to revoke that European arrest warrant and release him.

The first entry in the individual’s criminal record shows no convictions.

*On the proceedings

On 30 May 2023, the Public Prosecutor at the Paris Court of Appeal conducted an identification interview with the individual concerned and informed him of the content of the European arrest warrant and his rights of defence, a record of which was drawn up. X. Y. acknowledged that the grounds on which the European arrest warrant was issued did indeed apply to him, but he did not consent to his surrender. He did not request the
appointment of a court-appointed lawyer in Italy in the context of the national proceedings underlying the European arrest warrant.

On the same day, 30 May 2023, the Public Prosecutor at the Paris Court of Appeal referred the matter to the magistrate delegated by the First President of the Paris Court of Appeal for the purpose of placing the person concerned under judicial supervision.

On the same day, the magistrate delegated by the Public Prosecutor at the Paris Court of Appeal issued an order ruling on the applications and placed X. Y. under judicial supervision, subject to the following obligations and prohibitions:
– To take up residence at the Hôtel Belloy Saint-Germain, 02 Rue Racine, Paris (75006);
– Not to leave the territory of mainland France;
– To hand over to the registry of the Investigating Chamber all documents proving his identity, in particular his passport and identity card;
– To report weekly to the police station of the sixth arrondissement of Paris;
– To comply with summonses from the judicial authorities, in particular those from the Investigating Chamber;
– To notify the Investigating Chamber of any change of address.

At the public hearing of the Investigating Chamber held on 31 May 203, that is to say within the period of five working days from the date of submission to the Public Prosecutor, notice was given of the warrant on the basis of which the arrest had taken place, as well as of the documents produced in support of the request for the execution of the European Arrest Warrant. X. Y. acknowledged that the warrant under which the European arrest warrant was presented did indeed apply to him, but he did not consent to his surrender.

Consideration of the merits of the case was adjourned to the hearing of 14 June 2023, to allow for the production of a written defence, and then to the hearing of 21 June 2023, for the written submissions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the communication of a decision by the Italian Court of Cassation.

According to an email from the Italian judicial authorities dated 12 June 2023, it was stated that:
– The decision of the Turin Court of Appeal dated 23 January 2013 did indeed become final on 29 March 2018. In this regard, the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Turin Court of Appeal indicated that, by a decision of 23 February 2017, the Turin Court of Appeal had ordered the release of the person concerned in order to allow him to appeal against the decision of 23 January 2013, the court having noted that the summons to the trial hearing had not been duly served on him, as the British postal service had returned the acknowledgement of receipt accompanying the summons with the note ‘incomplete address’. An appeal to the Court of Cassation was thus lodged against the decision of 23 January 2023 by Artur Edward GOTTESMAN, which had allowed him to ‘summarise his entire case’, a procedure during which the interested party had appointed a solicitor and granted them power of attorney to represent him, and which had concluded with a judgment by the Italian Court of Cassation on 29 March 2018 dismissing the appeal;
– consequently, the order for imprisonment issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Appeal of Turin on 24 January 2019 remains still valid;
– the remaining custodial sentence to be served is two years’ imprisonment, as three years of imprisonment are to be deducted from the initial sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed, by virtue of a partial pardon granted under Law No 241 of 31 July 2006.
According to the judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation dated 29 March 2018, submitted by the defence and translated into French by an expert at the Court of Appeal of Aix-en- Provence, it was stated that:
– an application had first been made for ‘restoration of the time limit for lodging an extraordinary appeal’, or for the reopening of an extraordinary appeal, against a first judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation dated 10 November 2011, which quashed an initial judgment of the Turin Court of Appeal dated 21 January 2010, which had initially acquitted the defendants.

This application was declared inadmissible as it had not been lodged within the procedural time limits;- subsequently, the following were lodged against the judgment of the Turin Court of Appeal dated 23 January 2013, the judgment remitting the case following the aforementioned first cassation:
o a first ground of appeal alleging the nullity of the service of documents, and more specifically alleging the nullity of the judgment of the Turin Court of Appeal dated 23 January 2013 on the grounds of a failure to summon the defendant to appear and a failure to serve the judgment of first instance delivered in default. In this regard, the Italian Court of Cassation noted that the principle, with regard to notifications made to any defendant domiciled abroad, consisted of a notification by registered post, with the foreign postal authority informing the Italian postal authority of the manner in which the item had been delivered, and the statements of the foreign postal authority being binding on the and the Italian court. Consequently, when, in 2006, the notice of the conclusion of the investigation was served, the statements of the English postal service to the effect that the notice had been delivered to X. Y. were binding. By way of exception, where the foreign postal authority was required to notify that the item had not been delivered, Article 169 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure established the principle of notification to the state-appointed defence counsel, which had been done for the hearing date of the first appeal, in view of the note ‘incomplete address’ communicated by
the British postal service. The Italian Court of Cassation applied the same reasoning to the referral judgment of 23 January 2013, and to the subsequent proceedings, noting the existence of notifications to the lawyers appointed by the State. It therefore dismissed the ground:
o a second ground of appeal alleging a breach of Article 101, in the manner in which the referral judgment had partially quashed the decision of the court of first instance, and a failure to state reasons for the conviction. In this regard, the Italian Court of Cassation did not carry out an independent analysis of the facts of the case, but ensured that the reasoning followed by the appeal judges, in the referral judgment, and in particular the legal classifications applied, were in accordance with established case law. It therefore dismissed the ground of appeal;
o the third and fourth grounds of appeal, which concerned a failure to state reasons for the sentences. In this regard, the Italian Court of Cassation did not substitute reasons, but ensured that reasons were provided in the judgment on referral. It therefore dismissed the grounds.

– one of the co-defendants had been deceased since at least 2011. According to the decision of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 18 March 2020, submitted by the defence and translated into French by an expert at the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence, it was noted that:

– a certain X. Y. was arrested on 10 December 2019 in London, pursuant to an Italian European arrest warrant dated 9 July 2019; the summary of the facts forming the basis of the European arrest warrant, contained on pages four and five of that decision, confirmed that these were the same facts, but the ordine di esecuzione per la carcerazione issued by the Procura Generale della Repubblica presso la Corte d’Appello di Torino dated 20 February 2014 (page three of that decision);

– three requests for further information were made to the Italian judicial authorities by the British judicial authorities;

– the British court refused to surrender the person concerned to the Italian judicial authorities on the sole ground that he would not be entitled to a retrial in Italy, rejecting all other grounds raised by the person’s counsel.

*On the grounds raised

According to written submissions dated 19 June 2023, the Public Prosecutor’s Office requests that the surrender of the person concerned to the Italian judicial authorities be refused, on the grounds of inaccuracies contained in the European arrest warrant regarding the existence of a right of appeal against the judgment of the Turin Court of Appeal dated 23 January 2013, which is clearly excluded in the aforementioned email of 12 June 2023.

According to a submission by the defendant’s counsel sent by email to the Investigating Chamber and registered by the clerk on 13 June 2023 at 10.38 am, a request is made to refuse surrender to the Italian judicial authorities, on the grounds of:
– the ground for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant referred to in Article 695-22-1 paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since none of the exceptions referred to in points 1 to 4 of that article permits the surrender of the person concerned to the Italian judicial authorities. Indeed, it is apparent from the statements in the European arrest warrant form that X. Y. never appeared in person at the hearings in first instance and appeal; it was only from 2017 onwards, as revealed by the Italian judicial authorities in the aforementioned email of 12 June 2023, and also by the British judges in their decision of 18 March 2020 attached to the statement of case, that X. Y. was informed of the Italian proceedings, subsequently lodging an appeal to the Court of Cassation; in these circumstances, the objections referred to in points 1, 2 and 3 cannot
be applied. Finally, whilst the Italian judicial authorities, in the form for the European Arrest Warrant, stated that X. Y. would be served with notification of the decision upon its delivery and would have the opportunity to lodge an appeal within thirty days of such notification, it is clear from the email of 12 June 2023 cited above that the decision of the Court of Cassation and, consequently, that of the Court of Appeal under appeal have become final and that no further remedy under domestic law is available to the person concerned. The ground of appeal referred to in 4° is equally inapplicable. Whilst X. Y. was not granted a retrial enabling him to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, cross-examine witnesses or present his defence, he was therefore unable to benefit from the right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
– a risk of a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. According to a supplementary submission from the applicant’s counsel sent by email to the Investigating Chamber and registered by the clerk on 20 June 2023 at 10.42 am, a request is made to refuse surrender to the Italian authorities, on the grounds that the Italian Court of Cassation’s decision of 29 March 2018 is not a decision on the merits, having allowed for a re-examination of all the evidence in the file in the presence of X. Y. or his counsel, but a decision on points of law, based solely on the grounds for cassation submitted to it in support of the appeal lodged by the person concerned. This circumstance constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

DECISION

after deliberation in accordance with Article 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ON PROCEDURAL FORMS

The formal requirements and time limits prescribed by Articles 695-11 to 695-13 and 695-29 to 695-33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been complied with; the proceedings are therefore in order.

ON THE MERITS

* Regarding the irregularity of the European arrest warrant on the grounds of inaccuracies concerning the existence of a legal remedy available against the judgment of the Turin Court of Appeal dated 23 January 2013 In accordance with the provisions of Article 695-33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the Investigating Chamber considers that the information provided by the issuing Member State in the European Arrest Warrant is insufficient to enable it to rule on surrender, it shall request the judicial authority of that State to provide, within a maximum period of ten days from receipt, the necessary additional information.
In the present case, the Italian judicial authorities, at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and by email dated 12 June 2023, expressly stated that the decision of the Court of Appeal of Turin dated 23 January 2013 had become final, the appeal to the Court of Cassation, a remedy available to the person concerned, having been definitively dismissed. In these circumstances, the statement appearing on the European Arrest Warrant form issued on 9 July 2019, to the effect that the person concerned has: “the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which the person concerned has the right to participate and [which] allows the case to be re-examined on its merits, taking into account new evidence, and may lead to a reversal of the original decision”, is incorrect.

However, and contrary to the submissions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, it cannot be inferred from this error that the European arrest warrant is invalid. Indeed, the aforementioned article specifically allows the judicial authority of the executing Member State to request further information from the judicial authority of the issuing Member State in order to verify certain details contained in the European Arrest Warrant form, which may add to or remove from the details set out in the European Arrest Warrant. This additional information supplements the European Arrest Warrant without the need to issue a new European Arrest Warrant. Any interpretation to the contrary would lead to a proliferation of corrective European Arrest Warrants and slow down the process of surrender between Member States.

Consequently, the ground of appeal alleging the irregularity of the European arrest warrant, based on inaccuracies regarding the existence of a legal remedy available to X. Y. against the judgment of the Turin Court of Appeal dated 23 January 2013 and raised by the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Paris Court of Appeal.

*On the absence of mandatory grounds for non-execution of the European arrest warrant

In accordance with the provisions of Article 695-31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the person sought declares that they do not consent to their surrender, the investigating chamber shall rule by a decision issued, in principle, within twenty days of the date of the appearance of the person sought. It shall then verify that the legal conditions for the execution of the European arrest warrant are met.

In this regard, it is incumbent upon the court to ensure compliance with the conditions laid down by Articles 695-11, 695-12, 695-13, 695-14, 695-15, 695-22 and 695 -23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it being noted that it is not for the court to assess the merits of the prosecution or the conviction handed down. In the present case, as regards the facts referred to in the European arrest warrant, they do not fall within any of the categories of offences referred to in Article 695-23(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which refers to Article 694-32 of the same Code. It is therefore necessary to verify dual criminality, a condition which is met here within the meaning of Article 695-23(1)(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Indeed, these facts may be classified under French law as bankruptcy under Articles L. 654-2 and L. 654-8 of the Commercial Code.

Furthermore, these acts have resulted in the imposition of a sentence of four months’ imprisonment or more under the law of the issuing Member State, in this case five years, in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 695-12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Finally, these acts do not present any connecting factor with France, neither by the place where they were committed, nor by the nationality of the perpetrator or the victims, nor by virtue of a statutory provision.

Furthermore, the European arrest warrant, issued by a competent judicial authority, complete in its particulars, and transmitted in the French language, does not relate to offences committed by a minor under the age of thirteen, nor to offences that have already been adjudicated by another court of a Member State of the European Union, and was not issued for discriminatory purposes

In these circumstances, there are no grounds for mandatory non-execution within the meaning of the provisions
listed above.

* On the grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant under Article 695-22-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

In accordance with the provisions of Article 695-22-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ‘Where the European Arrest Warrant is issued for the purpose of enforcing a sentence or a custodial security measure, its execution may be refused if the person concerned did not appear in person at the trial following which the sentence or security measure was imposed, unless, according to the information provided by the issuing Member State in the European arrest warrant, one of the following applies:
1° He was informed in accordance with the law and effectively, in an unequivocal manner, in good time, by summons or by any other means, of the date and place set for the trial and of the possibility that a decision might be taken against him in the event of his failure to appear;
2° Having been informed of the date and place of the trial, he was defended during the trial by a lawyer, appointed either by himself or at the request of the public authority, to whom he had given a mandate for that purpose;
3° Having been served with the decision and having been expressly informed of his right to lodge an appeal against it in order to obtain a fresh examination of the merits of the case, in his presence, by a court with the power to make a decision setting aside the original decision or replacing it, he expressly indicated that he did not contest the original decision or did not lodge the appeal available to him within the prescribed time limit;
4° The decision of which he has not been served must be served on him as soon as it is issued, at which time he shall also be informed of the possibility of bringing the appeal provided for in 3° and of the time limit for doing so.”

In the present case, it is apparent from the documents in the case file that it is not contested, including by the Italian judicial authorities, that X. Y. was absent from the hearing leading to the sentence handed down by the Turin Court of Appeal in its judgment of 23 January 2013.

Indeed, on the one hand, it is expressly stated in the European Arrest Warrant form that the person concerned was not present at the trial leading to that decision. Furthermore, the Italian judicial authorities, in their email dated 12 June 2023, specify that the same Turin Court of Appeal, in its decision of 23 February 2017, expressly found that X. Y. had not been made aware of the date and place of the trial which led to the decision of the Turin Court of Appeal of 23 January 2013, due to the failure of the UK postal service to deliver the notice of hearing because the address was incomplete. That is why the Turin Court of Appeal, in its decision of 23 February 2017, decided to authorise the party concerned to lodge an appeal to the Court of Cassation, even though he was initially manifestly precluded from doing so.

Similarly, it is apparent from the documents in the case file that it has not been shown that X. Y. was aware of the other legal proceedings brought against him in Italy, whether concerning the decision of the Court of Ivrea dated 1 July 2007, the decision of the Turin Court of Appeal dated 21 January 2010, or the decision of the Italian Court of Cassation dated 10 November 2011. On the contrary, with regard to the latter decision, a reading of the judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation of 29 March 2018 shows that no notification of the hearing date prior to the judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation of 10 November 2011 had been issued.

In this regard, the judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation of 29 March 2018 states that, where the defendant is domiciled abroad, notifications are to be sent to them by registered post, and, should this be impossible, directly to the lawyers appointed by the Italian State, lawyers who have not been appointed by the person concerned nor have even been able to inform them that they have been appointed and of the defence strategies they intend to pursue. On the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that it is from the moment appeals are lodged by the person concerned, a lawyer by profession, that the date on which he became aware of these various legal proceedings must be determined, namely from 2017.

Consequently, cases 1 and 2 of the aforementioned article cannot apply, as X. Y. was never informed of the date and place of his trial, nor can cases 3 and 4 of the same article, insofar as X. Y. was served with the decision of the Turin Court of Appeal of 23 January 2013, against which he had already lodged an appeal to the Court of Cassation in 2017.

Therefore, the ground for non-enforcement under Article 695-22-1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is likely to apply. Given the discretionary power of the trial judges, it is necessary to consider whether the judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation of 29 March 2018 can be regarded as an appeal ‘enabling a fresh examination of the merits of the case, in the defendant’s presence, by a court with the power to re-examine the case and issue a decision setting aside the original decision or replacing it’ within the meaning of case 3° of the aforementioned article. Indeed, the examination of the charges, in the presence of the person concerned, appears to be the decisive criterion, which embodies the essence of the right to a fair trial. In this regard, it should be noted that the text referred to in case 3° requires that the court hearing the appeal must either set aside the original conviction or issue a new decision replacing the original conviction, but, in both cases, ensuring a fresh examination of the merits of the case.

However, in the present case, whilst the Italian judicial authorities, in the email dated 12 June 2023, explain that, following the judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation of 29 March 2018, X. Y. was able to see ‘his entire case summarised’, it must be noted, on reading that judgment, that the Italian Court of Cassation does not carry out any independent analysis of the facts of the case, merely verifying that the appeal judges had complied with the case-law then applicable regarding the manner of characterising the facts, nor does it discuss the sentence, in respect of which it confines itself to a formal review of the reasoning. In other words, the Italian Court of Cassation rules on points of law, not on facts, addressing neither the substance of the case nor the charges. It does not examine any of the defendants, hear witnesses, or assess the evidence on the record—all of which is, moreover, now difficult given the death, in 2011, of one of the defendants.

Thus, no fresh examination of the merits of the case has been carried out, despite the appeal lodged, and despite the fact that X. Y. was never informed of the date and place of the various judicial proceedings against him in Italy.

Consequently, the surrender of X. Y. to the, in accordance with the terms set out in the operative part of this judgment.

ON THESE GROUNDS
THE COURT

Having regard to the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States,
Having regard to Articles 695-11 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the European arrest warrant,

REJECTS the ground of appeal alleging the irregularity of the European arrest warrant, based on inaccuracies regarding the existence of a legal remedy available to X. Y. against the judgment of the Turin Court of Appeal dated 23 January 2013 and raised by the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Paris Court of Appeal;

NOTES that there are no grounds for the mandatory non-execution of the European arrest warrant issued against X. Y. by Dr.ssa Mari NUCCIO, Deputy Public Prosecutor at the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Appeal of Turin, dated 9 July 2019;

APPLIES the provisions of Article 695-22-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

REFUSES to surrender X. Y. to the judicial authorities of the Italian Republic in execution of the European arrest warrant issued in the following terms:
– pursuant to the European arrest warrant dated 9 July 2019, issued by Dr.ssa Marina NUCCIO, Deputy Public Prosecutor at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic at the Court of Appeal of Turin,
– on the basis of a decision of the Court of Appeal of Turin dated 23 January 2013 (Italian case number: Sentence No. 264/2013 and R.G. App.) partially overturning a decision No. 1196/2012 of the Court of Ivrea dated 1 July 2007, which became final on 29 November 2018, and on the basis of an order for imprisonment issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Appeal of Turin dated 24 January 2019 (Italian case number: 227/18), the European arrest warrant stating that the person concerned was not present at the trial leading to the decision and that he “did not personally receive service of the decision, but will receive it personally without delay following surrender and, at the time of service of the decision, will be expressly informed of his right to a retrial or to an appeal procedure, in which the person concerned has the right to participate and [which] allows for a review of the case on its merits, taking into account new evidence, and may result in the overturning of the original decision”, a right to be exercised within thirty days of the personal service of the decision, and deprivation of liberty for a period of for the purposes of enforcing a five-year prison sentence imposed in punishment of the offences of aggravated fraudulent bankruptcy committed in concert and fraudulent bankruptcy committed on 12 May 1999 in Ivrea, and provided for and punishable under Articles 110 of the Italian Criminal Code, and 216(1)(1), 223(1), and 219(1) and (2)(1) of Royal Decree 267/1942, it being noted that the remaining portion of the sentence to be served is two years’ imprisonment, after deduction of a partial amnesty of the sentence granted by Law 241/2006

DECLARES that there is no need to rule on the ground of a risk of violation of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

ORDERS the lifting of the judicial supervision to which X. Y. is subject by order of the magistrate delegated by the First President of the Paris Court of Appeal dated 30 May 2023

DECLARES that this judgment shall be enforced at the instigation of the Public Prosecutor.

NOTES that this decision was notified verbally today to the person concerned through an English-language interpreter, pursuant to Articles 803-5 and D. 594-6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.