Belgium

It is certainly not for the Italian judicial authority to verify the existence of the custodial requirements set out in Article 274 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure for the adoption of a “domestic” precautionary measure by the foreign judicial authority. The only relevant consideration is that the European Arrest Warrant constitutes a judicial decision issued for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings. It is therefore clear that the challenged decision confuses two distinct levels: on the one hand, the precautionary measure issued by the requesting State; on the other, the measure to be adopted by the requested State in order to ensure the execution of the warrant through the surrender of the requested person.

Where multiple applications for house arrest are filed within a short timeframe, the Court of Appeal may legitimately reject the subsequent requests by referring to the reasoning already set out in previous decisions, provided that no new and relevant elements have been introduced. In such circumstances, defence arguments relating to the requested person’s personal or professional situation, or to their ties with the national territory, may be deemed insufficient to alter the prior assessment of custodial needs—especially where the Court has already highlighted a concrete risk of absconding or the existence of transnational support networks making alternative measures inadequate.

In the context of extradition for foreign countries, the status of a mother of a child who, even if over three years of age, requires continuous material and emotional care entails that surrender must be made conditional upon the existence, in the requesting State, of adequate guarantees ensuring that the requested person can maintain contact with her children. Such arrangements need not mirror those provided for under the Italian penitentiary system, but must nonetheless be sufficient to safeguard the psychophysical integrity of the child, the parent, and the family unit as a whole.

The requested person, detained in Finland pursuant to a Belgian European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution, challenged her continued detention and argued that a monitored travel ban should have been imposed instead. The Supreme Court held that Finnish courts may use a monitored travel ban to secure execution of an EAW surrender decision, but must assess case by case whether such a less intrusive measure is sufficient in light of the risk of absconding and the principle of proportionality. Although the requested person had lived in Finland for several years and had three minor children, the seriousness of the alleged offences, the established flight risk and the fact that detention had lasted only two days justified continued detention. The Court therefore held that a monitored travel ban would not have been sufficient to secure surrender and that the detention order was lawful, proportionate and not unreasonable.