Croatia Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure

Extradition cases involving Croatia — Requested and Requesting State

🇭🇷

Croatia

Croatia Extradition Law & Case Law — 6 cases

1
As requested
state
5
As requesting
state
Connected jurisdictions
Case Law
Conversion of EAW proceedings into Extradition proceedings (for offences committed before 7 August 2002) and validation of the provisional arrest
✕
Summary
Requests for execution concerning offences committed before 7 August 2002 are governed by the provisions in force prior to the entry into force of the law on the European Arrest Warrant. Therefore, the Court of Appeal failed, when validating the provisional arrest and issuing the custodial measure, in applying the rules governing the European Arrest Warrant, since, in the present case, the applicable framework was that relating to extradition. However, where, during the proceedings, the EAW procedure is “converted” into extradition proceedings — together with all the related procedural steps — the fact that the procedure was initially commenced under the rules governing the European Arrest Warrant, rather than under the extradition regime applicable ratione temporis, does not preclude validation of the provisional arrest carried out by the judicial police. Accordingly, once the Minister of Justice has timely requested the continuation of the coercive measure, and the proceedings have been transformed with the application of extradition law instead of the EAW framework, the original custodial measure imposed following validation of the applicant’s arrest must be regarded as entirely lawful.
11/05/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 16913/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇭🇷Croatia
Decision on precautionary measureEAW
EAW: criminal records and pending proceedings are not evidence of a stable period of presence in that State
✕
Summary
Criminal records and pending proceedings, being inconsistent with the aim of social and occupational reintegration of the requested person, do not constitute factual elements capable of establishing the existence of a stable and non-temporary territorial integration in the State. The circumstances put forward by the person concerned — who, at the validation hearing, stated that he had been living in Italy for more than twenty years, that he had been cohabiting with his partner and her children for more than two years, and that he worked as a builder and gardener without a contract — amount to mere verbal assertions unsupported by evidence. The information derived from the fingerprint records can at most indicate the individual’s choice to identify the national territory as the center of his criminal activities, but not to prove effective integration, which, insofar as it is relevant for the recognition of the sentence for enforcement in Italy, implies adherence to socially shared values.
11/02/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 5897/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇭🇷Croatia
GrantedEAW
EAW and optional nature of the so-called “repatriation clause”
✕
Summary
In the context of a procedural European Arrest Warrant, a judge who does not consider it appropriate to make the execution thereof conditional upon the guarantee that the person to be surrendered, following the conclusion of the proceedings, be returned to Italy to serve any custodial sentence or security measure that may be imposed by the issuing State, is required to provide specific reasoning for such a decision, with regard to the social rehabilitation needs of the convicted person, setting out the elements taken into consideration and the relevant assessment criteria.
29/01/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 3952/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇭🇷Croatia
Reversal and remandEAW
Extradition to China refused: human rights risks barred surrender despite partial evidentiary findings
✕
Summary
The case concerned a request by the People’s Republic of China for the extradition of Sun Bocheng from Croatia for prosecution in relation to several alleged offences, including participation in a criminal organisation, fraud, forced trade, illegal gambling activities, and violent conflict-related offences. The County Court in Zagreb examined the statutory extradition requirements offence by offence. It found that some elements of the request, especially those concerning the alleged criminal organisation, were sufficiently described and could in principle satisfy requirements such as double criminality and absence of limitation. However, for several other offences the Court found that the Chinese request did not provide sufficiently individualized evidence to establish substantiated suspicion against the requested person. More importantly, the Court held that extradition to China would be incompatible with Croatia’s obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Relying also on the European Court of Human Rights’ case law, including Liu v. Poland, the Court considered the risks linked to the death penalty, inhuman or degrading treatment, and lack of fair trial guarantees. It therefore concluded that the legal conditions for extradition were not met and refused surrender to China.
15/10/2021 · County Court in Zagreb · Case No. 14 Kv II-321/2021-9; Kir-104/2021
🇭🇷Croatia → 🇨🇳China
DeniedExtradition
EAW and failure to assess allegations on detention conditions
✕
Summary
A decision granting extradition must be quashed with remittal where it has failed to consider the documentation produced concerning the current detention conditions in the prison facilities of the requesting state. Case in which the court of appeal did not examine documents describing the living conditions currently existing in croatian penitentiary institutions.
19/02/2016 · Italian Supreme Court · 9897/2016
🇮🇹Italy → 🇭🇷Croatia
Reversal and remandEAW
Extradition to Croatia granted with deferred surrender due to pending Italian proceedings
✕
Summary
The case concerned a Croatian request for extradition from Italy for prosecution in relation to offences also broadly connected to criminal proceedings pending in Italy. The Court of Appeal of Bologna held that the conditions for extradition were met. It found that the request was supported by the required documentation, that the offences were punishable in both States, and that no grounds existed to believe that the requested person would face persecution, discrimination, inhuman or degrading treatment, or proceedings incompatible with fundamental rights. The Court also considered the existence of Italian proceedings concerning analogous facts. It held that those proceedings did not bar extradition because the facts were not fully identical to those underlying the foreign request. However, the Court specified that the execution of extradition would take place only after the conclusion of the pending Italian proceedings and after any sentence imposed in Italy had been served. Extradition was therefore granted, with surrender deferred until completion of the domestic case.
22/09/2008 · Court of Appeal of Bologna · 2955/2008
🇮🇹Italy → 🇭🇷Croatia
GrantedExtradition
Country Contributor
Aleksandra Horvat
Aleksandra Horvat Law Office
Aleksandra Horvat is a Croatian criminal defence lawyer with extensive experience in criminal law, European criminal law and cross-border criminal matters.
She graduated from the Faculty of Law of the University of Rijeka in 2007 and passed the Croatian Bar Exam in 2010. She is currently attending postgraduate studies in criminal law sciences at the Faculty of Law of the University of Zagreb, where she has completed all examinations and is preparing her master’s thesis.
In 2012, she started her independent legal practice by opening her own law office. From 2015 to 2023, she was a founder and partner of the law firm Grahovac, Horvat, Žaper d.o.o. On 6 December 2023, she established the Law Office of Aleksandra Horvat. Since May 2024, she has also been a permanent associate of the law firm Gajski, Grlić, Prka and Partners d.o.o.
Her professional work is focused on criminal defence, with a particular interest in European criminal law, international cooperation in criminal matters and proceedings involving cross-border elements, including extradition and European Arrest Warrant cases.
She has participated in numerous domestic and international conferences, seminars and training programmes in the fields of criminal law and European criminal law. She speaks English fluently and is further developing her professional knowledge of German and Italian.
Aleksandra Horvat is a member of the Croatian Bar Association and the Croatian Association for Criminal Sciences and Practice. She is also a member of the International Association of Penal Law (AIDP/IAPL), the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA), and European Fraud and Compliance Lawyers (EFCL).
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving Croatia

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →