Italy Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure

Extradition cases involving Italy — Requested and Requesting State

🇮🇹

Italy

Italy Extradition Law & Case Law — 355 cases

349
As requested
state
6
As requesting
state

So-called passive extradition is the procedure through which a foreign State requests Italy to surrender a person in order to subject that person to criminal proceedings (extradition for prosecution) or for the enforcement of a sentence (extradition for enforcement). In Italy, it is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and by any applicable international conventions.

Passive extradition in Italy is primarily governed by Articles 697 to 722 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. At the international level, Italy is a party to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition and its Additional Protocols, as well as to numerous bilateral treaties with individual States. As regards European Union Member States, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is governed by Law No. 69 of 22 April 2005, which implemented Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.

Several authorities are involved. First, the territorially competent Court of Appeal, before which the so-called judicial phase takes place and which determines whether the legal requirements for extradition are met. The same Court of Appeal is also competent to impose any precautionary measures aimed at preventing the person sought from absconding, in order to ensure that, should extradition be granted, the requested person has not in the meantime left the jurisdiction. Decisions of the Court of Appeal may be challenged before the Supreme Court of Cassation. The Prosecutor General at the Court of Appeal and the Minister of Justice are also involved; the latter exercises significant powers at every stage of the proceedings, including in relation to precautionary measures, among them the power to decide whether to give effect to the extradition request.

The existence of a treaty or convention is very common. In any event, extradition may also take place in the absence of a treaty, by applying the provisions of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. Where no convention exists, or where the applicable convention does not provide otherwise, the Court of Appeal shall render a judgment in favour of extradition if there are serious indications of guilt, or if there is an irrevocable judgment of conviction, and provided that, in respect of the same facts, no criminal proceedings are pending and no irrevocable judgment has been delivered in Italy against the person whose extradition is sought.

Proceedings may be started in two ways: by means of a formal request from the foreign State, transmitted through diplomatic channels to the Ministry of Justice, together with the documentation required by law and by any applicable treaties; or by means of a request for provisional arrest, submitted on an urgent basis—often based on the existence of an Interpol Red Notice concerning the person sought—pending transmission of the full extradition request, which in that case must be submitted in the weeks following the arrest.

Where the Minister of Justice decides to give effect to the extradition request, he or she transmits it, together with the accompanying documents, to the Prosecutor General at the competent Court of Appeal within thirty days of receipt. Within thirty days from the date on which the extradition request is received, the Prosecutor General files his or her submissions before the Court of Appeal. A hearing on the merits is then scheduled in order to decide whether the extradition request should be granted or refused.

If, as usually happens, a precautionary measure has been imposed, a hearing may be scheduled before the hearing on the extradition request in order to decide on any applications seeking the revocation or replacement of that measure.

The decision lies with the territorially competent Court of Appeal, sitting as a panel of three judges. Jurisdiction is determined by the place where the person sought is located. Jurisdiction lies, in order, with the Court of Appeal in whose district the accused or convicted person has his or her residence, abode, or domicile at the time the extradition request reaches the Minister of Justice; failing that, with the Court of Appeal that ordered the provisional arrest under Article 715; or with the Court of Appeal whose President validated the arrest under Article 716. If jurisdiction cannot be determined on any of those grounds, jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeal of Rome.

Yes. Judgments of the Court of Appeal—both those concerning precautionary measures and those concerning the extradition request itself—may be challenged before the Supreme Court of Cassation.

No. By way of exception, where the judgment by which the Court of Appeal ruled on the extradition request is challenged, the Supreme Court may also act as a court with jurisdiction over the merits.

In the absence of the required documentation—including the measure restricting personal liberty, the description of the facts, the applicable legal provisions, and any relevant judgments—any precautionary measure that has been imposed may cease to have effect if the documentation is not transmitted within the prescribed time limits (40 days under the European Convention on Extradition).

Yes. Subject to reciprocity, the requesting State may participate in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Cassation through counsel admitted to practise before the Italian judicial authorities.

Yes. The Italian authorities may arrest the person concerned even before the formal extradition request has been submitted.

It is a measure that may be carried out by the judicial police where a request for provisional arrest has been made by the requesting State. The authority that effected the arrest must immediately inform the Minister of Justice and, as soon as possible and in any event no later than 48 hours, place the arrested person at the disposal of the President of the Court of Appeal in whose district the arrest took place, by transmitting the relevant report. Unless the arrested person must be released, the President of the Court of Appeal shall, within the following 48 hours, validate the arrest by order and, where the legal requirements are met, impose a coercive measure.

Yes. An Interpol Red Notice may provide the basis for provisional arrest; indeed, it is treated as equivalent to a request for provisional arrest and results in the individual concerned acquiring the status of a person wanted for extradition purposes.

Once a person has acquired the status of a person wanted for extradition purposes, it is sufficient for the judicial police to verify the data recorded in the Interpol database—for example during a border control or as a result of an accommodation alert—for provisional arrest to be carried out.

It is the system under which hotel operators and other accommodation providers must, within 24 hours of arrival, communicate the identity details of their guests to the territorially competent police authorities.

As a general rule, the requesting State must transmit the full request within 40 days of the provisional arrest. That time limit may vary depending on the applicable convention. In the case of a European Arrest Warrant, different and stricter time limits apply, as these are laid down directly by EU legislation.

If the requesting State fails to transmit the extradition request and its annexes within the prescribed time limit, any precautionary measure should in principle be lifted immediately and the person released. The Italian authorities may not keep the individual in custody beyond that time limit in the absence of a formal extradition request. A fresh request may, however, be submitted at a later stage, provided the legal requirements are met.

Yes. The Court of Appeal may replace custodial detention with less restrictive measures, including house arrest or an obligation to report to the judicial police, after assessing the flight risk and the personal circumstances of the individual concerned.

The Court must rely on concrete and current factors, such as the person’s ties to the territory, the existence of stable family and employment links, the availability of travel documents, and the conduct of the person concerned. The seriousness of the alleged offence alone is not sufficient; what is required is an individualised assessment of the circumstances of the specific case.

In order to obtain a less intrusive measure than custodial detention, it may be necessary to show that the person sought has a connection with Italy or that suitable accommodation is available, such as a residence with relatives living in Italy or other housing arrangements, including accommodation rented by a relative of the person sought.

The requested person has the right to be assisted by counsel of choice or, failing that, by court-appointed counsel. Where a coercive measure has been imposed, the President of the Court of Appeal must, as soon as possible and in any event within five days of the execution or validation of the measure, establish the identity of the person, question him or her, and, after informing the person of the legal consequences, ascertain whether he or she consents to extradition or waives the protection afforded by the specialty principle. The person also has the right to an interpreter if he or she does not understand Italian.

The requested person may declare his or her consent to surrender.

Where the detention proves to have been wrongful, the person sought may be entitled to compensation for wrongful detention.

Yes. You may still be arrested in other countries on the basis of an Interpol Red Notice.

There are several grounds on which extradition must be refused: for example, where the offence is of a political nature; where the person has already been finally tried in Italy for the same facts (ne bis in idem); where the offence is punishable by the death penalty in the requesting State, without sufficient assurances that such penalty will not be carried out; where there is a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment (for example because of prison conditions); where there is a risk of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political opinions; or where the offence is time-barred under either Italian law or the law of the requesting State.

Yes. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights constitutes an absolute limit on extradition. If there are substantial grounds for believing that, once extradited, the person would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, extradition must be refused irrespective of the seriousness of the offence alleged. Likewise, structurally inadequate prison conditions in the requesting State may justify refusal of extradition or the making of surrender conditional upon the provision of specific assurances.

Italian courts must carry out a concrete assessment of the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, taking into account reports by international organisations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, CPT), judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and any other available documentary material. Where a real risk is established, the Court may require the requesting State to provide specific and individualised assurances as to the conditions of detention.

The existence of criminal proceedings pending in Italy in respect of the same facts constitutes a ground for refusal of extradition, in application of the ne bis in idem principle and in light of Italy’s interest in prosecuting the case itself. The Court of Appeal assesses the overlap between the facts underlying the foreign request and those forming the subject matter of the Italian proceedings, as well as the procedural stage reached by the latter.

As a general rule, no. The physical presence of the person on Italian territory is a necessary precondition for the starting and conduct of extradition proceedings. In the absence of the person, no precautionary measures may be imposed and no hearing may be held before the Court of Appeal.

Connected jurisdictions
🇺🇸United States32 cases🇷🇴Romania28 cases🇩🇪Germany25 cases🇦🇱Albania22 cases🇲🇩Moldova16 cases🇨🇭Switzerland16 cases🇪🇸Spain13 cases🇧🇷Brazil12 cases🇫🇷France10 cases🇵🇪Peru9 cases🇷🇺Russia8 cases🇦🇹Austria8 cases🇺🇦Ukraine8 cases🇹🇷Turkey8 cases🇬🇧United Kingdom8 cases🇵🇱Poland7 cases🇨🇳China7 cases🇺🇾Uruguay7 cases🇬🇷Greece6 cases🇭🇷Croatia5 cases🇦🇷Argentina5 cases🇵🇹Portugal5 cases🇲🇹Malta4 cases🇲🇰North Macedonia4 cases🇧🇦Bosnia4 cases🇲🇨Monaco4 cases🇨🇱Chile4 cases🇵🇰Pakistan4 cases🇧🇪Belgium4 cases🇻🇪Venezuela3 cases🇭🇺Hungary3 cases🇪🇨Ecuador3 cases🇰🇼Kuwait3 cases🇧🇬Bulgaria2 cases🇩🇿Algeria2 cases🇱🇻Latvia2 cases🇨🇾Cyprus2 cases🇮🇳India2 cases🇨🇦Canada2 cases🇮🇱Israel2 cases🇷🇸Serbia2 cases🇹🇳Tunisia2 cases🇲🇽Mexico2 cases🇰🇷South Korea2 cases🇬🇪Georgia2 cases🇦🇪United Arab Emirates2 cases🇩🇴Dominican Republic2 cases🇸🇲San Marino1 case🇿🇦South Africa1 case🇵🇦Panama1 case🇸🇰Slovakia1 case🇳🇴Norway1 case🇳🇬Nigeria1 case🇨🇴Colombia1 case🇨🇿Czech Republic1 case🇰🇬Kyrgyzstan1 case🇫🇮Finland1 case🇸🇪Sweden1 case🇪🇪Estonia1 case🇵🇾Paraguay1 case🇲🇦Morocco1 case🇽🇰Kosovo1 case🇲🇪Montenegro1 case🇧🇾Belarus1 case🇳🇱Netherlands1 case🇳🇿New Zealand1 case🇪🇬Egypt1 case🇱🇰Sri Lanka1 case🇲🇺Mauritius1 case
Latest News
Council of Europe anti-torture Committee (CPT) carries out a visit to Italy
Council of Europe anti-torture Committee (CPT) · 15 Sep 2025
Read →
Anti-torture Committee publishes report on ad hoc visit to Italy
Council of Europe anti-torture Committee (CPT) · 13 Dec 2024
Read →
Case Law
Surrender to Germany granted: EPPO proceedings in Italy did not constitute optional ground for refusal
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court of Munich, at the request of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in Munich, for the prosecution of offences relating to an alleged transnational VAT fraud scheme involving missing trader companies. The Court of Appeal of Milan ordered surrender, subject to the condition that, in the event of conviction, the requested person be returned to Italy to serve any custodial sentence. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that surrender should have been refused because an EPPO proceeding concerning the same facts was already pending before the Naples office, creating a risk of parallel proceedings and ne bis in idem. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that the optional territoriality refusal ground requires a current and concrete conflict of jurisdiction, not merely a potential overlap. In any event, where the EAW is issued within EPPO proceedings, coordination issues between delegated European prosecutors operating in different Member States must be resolved within the EPPO framework and do not fall to the Italian executing court. The Italian court must only verify that the EAW comes from a judicial authority of another Member State and satisfies the statutory requirements. In the present case, the Naples EPPO office had clarified that its investigation concerned only the year 2016 and was at an initial stage, while the German EAW covered a broader factual context from January 2016 to July 2024, involving more transactions and companies. Any possible overlap was therefore limited and insufficient to justify refusal, especially since the Italian authority had not expressed an intention to exercise its punitive power over the facts covered by the EAW. The Court also rejected the objection that the EAW was too generic, holding that it adequately described the associative context, the requested person’s role, the timeframe, the applicable offences and penalties. The appeal was dismissed and the surrender order upheld.
18/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22878/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇩🇪Germany
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: detention assurances and lack of pleaded integration defeated refusal grounds
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for the execution of a sentence of two years, eleven months and fifteen days’ imprisonment imposed by the Motru Tribunal for offences including assault and bodily injury. The Court of Appeal of Palermo ordered surrender. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that the information provided by Romania did not sufficiently identify the prison where the sentence would actually be served, did not clarify whether the minimum personal space excluded furniture, and did not properly address the conditions in Rahova prison, where he would initially be placed. He also argued that the Court of Appeal had failed to assess his integration in Italy for the purposes of the optional refusal ground based on social rehabilitation. The Italian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. As to detention conditions, it held that the Romanian authorities had provided specific and adequate information. The requested person would spend only two and a half days in quarantine at Bucharest-Rahova, where the three square metres of personal space did not include the bed and furniture. Although Targu Jiu was indicated as the “very probable” place of execution, the Court considered that the semi-open or open regime, the possibility of spending substantial time outside the cell, and access to work, educational, cultural, therapeutic and rehabilitative activities were relevant compensatory factors. The Court also referred to recent case law finding that Romania had overcome earlier structural deficiencies in its prison system following reforms adopted after the ECtHR pilot judgment in Rezmiveș and Others. As to social rehabilitation, the Court held that the defence had failed to provide specific allegations or evidence showing lawful and effective residence or stay in Italy for at least five years, as required by Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005. The mere assertion of the refusal ground could not trigger an exploratory assessment by the court. The surrender order was therefore upheld.
18/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22879/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: residence-based refusal ground does not apply to prosecution EAW
✕
Summary
The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Tribunal of Constanza for fraud, based on a Romanian pre-trial detention warrant. The requested person challenged surrender, relying on his alleged long-term residence and work activity in Italy, the alleged uncertainty surrounding the continued validity of the Romanian precautionary title, and the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in Romania. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that residence and social rehabilitation are irrelevant in relation to a prosecution EAW, since Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005 applies only to EAWs issued for the execution of a custodial sentence or security measure. The Court also found that the Romanian authorities had expressly confirmed both the continuing interest in surrender and the validity of the pre-trial detention warrant. Finally, as to detention conditions, the Court held that no systemic risk currently justified derogation from mutual trust in respect of Romania and that, in any event, the Romanian authorities had provided specific and individualized information on the detention path of the requested person, including pre-trial detention in Constanza and possible sentence execution in Slobozia. The surrender order was therefore upheld.
18/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22776/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Germany granted: EAW cannot be replaced by an EIO when transfer is required for criminal proceedings
✕
Summary
The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Hamburg District Court for attempted aggravated theft in conspiracy. The requested person challenged surrender, arguing that the EAW did not contain sufficient identifying information and that the German authorities should have used less intrusive instruments, such as a European Investigation Order, if the real purpose was investigative. The Italian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that, after the 2021 reform of Law No. 69/2005, the EAW must indicate the identity and nationality of the requested person, but further identification data, fingerprints or DNA are not required unless there is a concrete doubt as to identity. In this case, the correspondence of personal details was sufficient and no real doubt emerged. As to the purpose of the warrant, the Court held that a prosecution EAW is legitimate where the person is sought for pending criminal proceedings, including appearance before the judicial authority or trial. It is not for the executing State to review the issuing authority’s assessment of the need for the person’s presence. An EIO may be used for evidence-gathering purposes, but it cannot replace an EAW where the requested person must be transferred for criminal proceedings rather than merely heard for evidentiary purposes. Since there was no indication that the warrant had exclusively investigative aims detached from prosecution, surrender was upheld.
18/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22775/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇩🇪Germany
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Cyprus granted: postponement for Italian sentence remained discretionary
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Cypriot judicial authorities for prosecution in relation to offences including armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery and attempted burglary. The Court of Appeal ordered surrender, finding that the EAW contained the information required by Italian law, that the facts were also offences under Italian law, and that no mandatory or optional grounds for refusal applied. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that surrender should have been postponed under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005 because he had to serve a sentence in Italy for a different offence, and that surrender should in any event have been made subject to a return guarantee under Article 19(2), given his family ties in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that postponement of surrender under Article 24 is discretionary: the Court of Appeal had reasonably declined to postpone surrender because the Cypriot request concerned serious offences, including aggravated robbery and criminal association, whereas the Italian sentence concerned a less serious aggravated theft conviction. The Court also held that temporary transfer to Italy under Article 24(2) requires a request from the issuing judicial authority, which was absent. As to the return guarantee, the Court found that the requested person’s family presence in Italy was insufficient to establish genuine and stable integration, especially given that he had not regularized his stay, had no lawful employment or residence permit, retained Serbian citizenship and property in Serbia, and had criminal records relevant to the offences prosecuted in Cyprus. The surrender order was therefore upheld.
17/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22626/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇨🇾Cyprus
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Austria granted: prosecution EAW may secure attendance at trial, not only investigative acts
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Austrian judicial authorities for the prosecution of a Montenegrin national accused of murder and attempted murder allegedly committed in Vienna. The Court of Appeal of Bologna ordered surrender. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that the EAW had an improperly investigative purpose and that Austria should instead have used a European Investigation Order; that the Italian court should have verified the existence of a previous extradition request from Montenegro and a Red Notice; that the EAW lacked adequate guarantees in relation to a possible life sentence; that surrender should have been subject to a return guarantee because of his family ties in Italy; and that surrender should have been postponed because of pending Italian criminal proceedings. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that a prosecution EAW is not limited to investigative purposes and may legitimately be issued to secure the requested person’s presence before the issuing judicial authority and ensure participation in criminal proceedings. By contrast, a European Investigation Order is aimed at acquiring evidence and cannot be used to transfer a person merely for trial attendance. The Court also held that the alleged earlier extradition request from Montenegro did not bar surrender, since no current competing request had been shown. As to the possible life sentence, the EAW expressly stated that Austrian law provides for review of the penalty after twenty years, or access to clemency measures allowing the sentence not to be executed: this was sufficient for the purposes of Article 19 of Law No. 69/2005. The Court further held that the requested person had not established genuine and stable integration in Italy capable of justifying a return guarantee, and that the pending Italian proceedings did not require postponement of surrender. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the surrender order upheld.
17/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22625/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇦🇹Austria
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: five-year residence requirement remains a prerequisite for social rehabilitation refusal ground
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the execution of a six-year prison sentence imposed for continuing theft offences committed in Romania between August 2018 and June 2022. The Court of Appeal of Milan ordered surrender. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that surrender should have been refused under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005 because of his residence and social integration in Italy, and that the Italian court had failed to verify the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Romanian prisons. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that, for the social rehabilitation refusal ground in execution EAW cases, the five-year lawful and effective residence or stay requirement remains a necessary prerequisite. The 2023 reform broadened the category of persons who may invoke the refusal ground, extending it beyond Italian and EU citizens, but did not remove the minimum five-year residence requirement. Only once that temporal requirement is established must the court assess the further indicators of integration listed in Article 18-bis, including family, work, linguistic, cultural, social and economic ties. In the present case, the Court of Appeal had found no proof of stable residence in Italy for at least five years; the documents showed, at most, residence from 2023, while the commission of offences in Romania between 2018 and 2022 pointed against stable integration in Italy. As to detention conditions, the Court held that the defence had submitted only generic allegations and had not identified any specific, current and reliable source showing a concrete risk in Romanian prisons. In the absence of such material, the executing court was not required to seek supplementary information. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the surrender order upheld.
17/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22624/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: drug transfer satisfied double criminality and postponement remained discretionary
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the execution of a prison sentence resulting from two convictions: one for unlawful drug trafficking committed in December 2020 and one for personal injury committed in February 2016, the latter conviction having led to the revocation of a previously suspended sentence. The Court of Appeal of Florence ordered surrender, finding that the offences satisfied double criminality, that no refusal grounds applied, that the requested person was not genuinely integrated in Italy, and that postponement of surrender was not justified despite pending Italian criminal proceedings. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that the drug offence concerned only the free transfer of 1.04 grams of cannabis and would amount merely to an administrative violation under Italian law; that surrender should have been postponed because the Italian proceedings concerned more serious facts and were already at trial stage; and that his family ties in Italy established sufficient social integration. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that the Romanian drug offence concerned the transfer of drugs to another person and therefore corresponded to the offence under Article 73 of Presidential Decree No. 309/1990, not to the administrative offence relating only to possession for personal use. The Court further held that postponement of surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005 is discretionary and had been reasonably refused, given that the Romanian sentence was final and significant, while the Italian proceedings were still pending at first instance. Temporary transfer to Italy was also unavailable because no request had been made by the issuing judicial authority. Finally, the Court held that the mere presence of the requested person’s mother and partner in Italy did not prove stable integration, especially in the absence of evidence of lawful employment, identity documents or genuine social roots. The surrender order was therefore upheld.
17/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22623/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: driving without a licence satisfied double criminality despite foreign recidivism
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for the execution of a sentence imposed by the Calafat Tribunal. The Court of Appeal of Milan ordered surrender only for the offence of driving without a licence, refusing surrender for the other offences. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that double criminality was lacking because the Italian offence requires recidivism within two years and the previous conviction had been issued in Romania, not in Italy; he also relied on social rehabilitation, family life, the best interests of his minor daughter, proportionality, and execution of the sentence in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that double criminality does not require perfect correspondence between the legal elements of the foreign and domestic offences: it is sufficient that the conduct is criminal in both legal systems. Recidivism, understood as repetition of unlawful conduct, was not a concept exclusive to Italian law and could be assessed by reference to the Romanian conviction. The Court further held that the requested person had not shown lawful and effective residence in Italy for at least five years, since the relevant links documented by the defence dated only from 2024. The complaints based on the best interests of the child were considered generic, as no specific evidence had been provided on cohabitation, the child’s actual situation, or any systemic deficiencies in Romania affecting detained parents or their children. The Court also rejected the proportionality argument, noting that the sentence exceeded the four-month threshold for execution EAWs and that execution in Italy cannot be requested outside the statutory refusal grounds. The surrender order was upheld.
17/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22774/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW to Romania: six-month residual penalty threshold does not override social rehabilitation refusal ground
✕
Summary
The case concerns the execution in Italy of an executive European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the surrender of a person convicted of using a false instrument, the issuing State having consented to the sentence being served in Italy. The Court of Appeal had acknowledged the appellant's settled residence in Italy and the issuing State's consent to transfer of execution, yet refused recognition of the foreign judgment on the ground that, after dissolving the cumulative sentence, the penalty attributable to the surrendered offence (four months) fell below the six-month threshold set for recognition of foreign judgments. The Court of Cassation held that the appellate court had no power to unilaterally re-determine or increase the sentence set by the foreign court, and that the six-month residual-penalty threshold for recognition under Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA cannot be read so as to neutralise the optional refusal ground under Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA based on the social rehabilitation interests of a person settled in the executing State, where the issuing State has already consented to domestic execution. The contested judgment was therefore annulled and remanded for a fresh assessment of the refusal ground under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005, applying the principles set out.
11/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 21910/2016
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania set aside: detention conditions required assessment of defence sources
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the surrender of a Romanian national convicted, by a non-final judgment, of drug-related offences. The Court of Appeal of Naples ordered surrender, rejecting the defence objection based on the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Romanian detention. The requested person argued that the Court of Appeal had failed to properly assess several reliable sources, including statements from directors of Romanian penitentiary institutions, showing overcrowding and the lack of the minimum three square metres of personal space, excluding fixed furniture. The Italian Supreme Court held that the appellate court’s reasoning was merely apparent: it had relied on the general adequacy of the detention regime indicated by Romania, without analytically addressing the defence material that appeared, in abstract terms, capable of contradicting those assurances. The Court stressed that, where relevant defence sources have been duly submitted, the executing court must carry out a full assessment of all available information and, if uncertainty remains, seek supplementary information on the individual detention conditions. By contrast, the Court rejected the argument that surrender was barred because the Romanian conviction was not yet final, holding that the Framework Decision requires enforceability, not finality, of the conviction. The judgment was therefore annulled with remand for a new assessment of detention conditions.
11/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 21912/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
Reversal and remandEAW
EAW precautionary measures: flight risk requires effective judicial assessment and the absence of concrete indicators leads the order to be quashed without remittal
✕
Summary
As regards precautionary needs in European Arrest Warrant proceedings, the requirements of concreteness and actuality of the risk of flight for the application of coercive measures must be assessed by the judge in light of the specific characteristics and purposes of the surrender procedure, which is aimed at the traditio in vinculis of the requested person, by carrying out a prognostic assessment of the risk that the person may abscond. In the present case, no reasoning was provided as to the need to apply the precautionary measure. The challenged order merely stated, as the basis for the measure, the need to ensure the surrender of the appellant, without referring to any objective and concrete elements capable of supporting a precautionary prognosis, which in fact was not even formulated. Accordingly, in the complete absence of any indication in this regard, the contested order must be annulled without referral, with a declaration that the precautionary measures applied to the appellant have lost their effect.
10/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 25552/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇦🇹Austria
Decision on precautionary measureEAW
Surrender to Germany set aside: Court failed to assess whether breach of conduct supervision was also punishable in Italy
✕
Summary
The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court of Rostock, Germany, in criminal proceedings for breach of instructions connected with German “conduct supervision”, a measure imposed after the requested person had fully served a previous prison sentence. The requested person argued that, given his alleged integration in Italy, the measure and any future sentence should be executed in Italy, and that the custodial measure was disproportionate. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the argument based on residence, noting that no five-year lawful and effective residence in Italy had been alleged and that, in any event, the case concerned a prosecution EAW, for which integration may at most lead to the return condition under Article 19(2) of Law No. 69/2005. However, the Court held that the Court of Appeal had failed to assess the legal nature of the German “conduct supervision” measure, which was essential to verify double criminality. Depending on its classification, the breach could be comparable under Italian law to violation of an ancillary penalty, breach of special preventive supervision, or mere breach of a security measure such as supervised liberty, the latter not amounting to a separate criminal offence in Italy. Since that assessment had not been carried out, the judgment was annulled and the case remitted for supplementary information and a new decision.
04/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 20905/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇩🇪Germany
Reversal and remandEAW
Surrender to Germany granted: missing penalty range in prosecution EAW did not bar execution
✕
Summary
The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court of Heidelberg, Germany, for the execution of a national arrest warrant relating to aggravated theft and fraud. The requested person challenged the surrender decision on the ground that the EAW did not expressly indicate the minimum and maximum penalties applicable under German law, as required by Article 6 of Law No. 69/2005, and argued that the Italian court should at least have requested supplementary information from the issuing authority. The Italian Supreme Court held that the omission of the penalty range in a prosecution EAW does not itself constitute a ground for refusal, since the grounds for refusal are exhaustively listed in Articles 18 and 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005. The Court further held that the EAW must be unequivocal but not necessarily explicit where the missing information can be inferred without uncertainty from the statutory provisions indicated in the warrant. Since the requested person had not shown any specific prejudice to his defence rights or any concrete risk of disproportionate or inhuman punishment, the appeal was dismissed and surrender remained ordered.
04/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 20906/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇩🇪Germany
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Spain granted: refusal to postpone surrender for pending Italian proceedings was not reviewable on appeal
✕
Summary
The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Court of Móstoles, Spain, for robbery and personal injury. The requested person was also in custody in Italy in separate drug-related proceedings and challenged the surrender decision because the Court of Appeal had refused to postpone surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005. The Italian Supreme Court held that the complaint concerned the discretionary assessment entrusted to the Court of Appeal when deciding whether surrender should be postponed to allow domestic proceedings to continue. Such an assessment, when supported by adequate reasoning, is not reviewable before the Supreme Court as a mere defect of reasoning. In any event, the Court noted that the Spanish proceedings were more advanced, since prosecution had already been brought and trial was pending, whereas the Italian proceedings were still at an early investigative stage. The requested person had also failed to identify any specific prejudice to his defence in Italy, relying only on a generic claim that surrender would impair his participation in the investigation. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible.
04/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 20904/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇪🇸Spain
GrantedEAW
Surrender to Romania granted: five-year residence requirement for execution in Italy was not established
✕
Summary
The case concerned an execution European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for the enforcement of a final two-year prison sentence for aggravated theft and driving without a licence. The requested person resisted surrender, arguing that the Italian Court of Appeal had failed to assess documents allegedly showing stable integration in Italy and that refusal of surrender was required under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005 in order to allow the sentence to be served in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court held that, after Legislative Decree No. 10/2021, an appeal against a surrender decision may not be brought on grounds of defective reasoning, including alleged omission or misreading of evidence. In any event, the Court found that the requested person had not even alleged the essential statutory requirement of lawful and effective residence or stay in Italy for at least five years, which applies under the amended Article 18-bis. A post-arrest offer of employment was insufficient to prove such integration and, if anything, confirmed the weakness of the claim. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible and surrender remained ordered.
04/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 20903/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedEAW
EAW: “degree of participation” requires only minimum information
✕
Summary
EAW must contain only the minimum formal information necessary to allow the executing judicial authority to decide promptly on surrender. The description of the offence and of the requested person’s role, including the “degree of participation”, need only be sufficient to enable the executing State to carry out the checks required by law, such as judicial origin, double criminality, ne bis in idem and territoriality. The warrant is not required to provide a detailed evidentiary account of the requested person’s conduct, nor may the executing authority review the evidential basis relied upon by the issuing authority. The expression “degree of participation” does not refer to the intensity of the person’s involvement, but to the different ways in which European legal systems classify participation in criminal associations, complicity, inchoate offences, incitement, attempt or conspiracy. Those distinctions are not decisive under Italian law, which is based on the equal liability of all participants in the offence. Therefore, where the warrant makes clear that the requested person provided essential assistance to the material perpetrator, the information is sufficient for surrender.
03/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 20603/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇫🇷France
GrantedEAW
Surrender to France: executing Court cannot review the evidential basis of a prosecution EAW
✕
Summary
The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Judicial Court of Grasse, France, for the execution of a custodial measure in criminal proceedings concerning attempted robbery with violence committed by an organised group and participation in a criminal association. The requested person challenged the surrender order, arguing that the French investigative phase did not sufficiently protect the rights of defence, that the EAW did not adequately describe her role in the alleged offences, and that the Italian court should have assessed the evidential basis of the accusation, including an alibi document produced by the defence. The Italian Supreme Court rejected those arguments, holding that generic allegations about the secrecy of French investigative proceedings did not establish systemic or individualised deficiencies capable of justifying refusal. It further held that, after Legislative Decree No. 10/2021, the executing judicial authority is not required to review the seriousness of the evidence underlying a prosecution EAW, and that the information concerning the facts and the requested person’s degree of participation need only be sufficient to allow the statutory checks and a prompt surrender decision. The Court also rejected the constitutional challenge to Article 17(4) of Law No. 69/2005 and refused to make a preliminary reference to the CJEU, dismissing the appeal and leaving the surrender order in force.
03/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 20631/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇫🇷France
GrantedEAW
Extradition to Brazil granted: generic prison conditions evidence did not trigger duty to seek further assurances
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request by Brazil for the prosecution of the requested person in relation to aggravated sexual violence against a minor allegedly committed in Brazil between 2011 and 2018. The requested person challenged the judgment granting extradition, arguing that the Court of Appeal had failed to assess the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in Brazil and should have requested information on the specific prison facility of destination, overcrowding, sanitary conditions and minimum living standards. The Italian Supreme Court held that the burden lies on the requested person to provide objective, precise, reliable and up-to-date evidence capable of raising a concrete risk of treatment incompatible with fundamental rights. General references to prison conditions, NGO reports or press articles were held insufficient, especially where the material relied upon did not contain specific and individualised information concerning the requested person’s likely detention. Since no concrete elements had been produced to undermine mutual trust between the States, the Court held that the Court of Appeal was not required to seek further information from the Brazilian authorities and dismissed the appeal.
03/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 20942/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇧🇷Brazil
GrantedExtradition
Extradition detention order set aside: medical incompatibility claim required formal expert assessment (Roman Khlynovskiy case)
✕
Summary
The case concerned a person held in custody in Italy pending extradition proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Bologna. The defence sought revocation or substitution of the custodial measure, arguing that the requested person’s health conditions were incompatible with prison detention. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, relying on the continuing risk of flight and on a prison medical report which considered detention compatible with the person’s health, without ordering an independent expert assessment. The Italian Supreme Court annulled that decision. It held that, where an application for revocation or replacement of custody is based on alleged incompatibility between the person’s health conditions and prison detention, the court must order medical assessments in expert form unless the alleged incompatibility is unsupported by adequate justification or the situation is clearly compatible with detention. That was not the case here. The prison medical report did not provide a stable and conclusive clinical picture, referred to the need for constant monitoring, and did not clarify whether the necessary diagnostic and therapeutic measures could be adequately and promptly provided within the prison system or in a prison medical facility. Only after such assessment could the court properly evaluate the continuing need for custody, the concreteness of the risk of flight, and the possible adequacy of less restrictive alternative measures. The order was therefore annulled with remand for a fresh assessment.
03/06/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 22770/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Country Contributor
Guido Stampanoni Bassi
Partner at Pistochini Avvocati // Founder at Extradition Hub // Founder at Giurisprudenza Penale
Founder of Extradition Hub, Guido Stampanoni Bassi is a criminal extradition lawyer at the Milan Bar and partner at Pistochini Avvocati law firm.
He is founder, editor and director of 'Giurisprudenza Penale', one of Italy’s leading criminal law reviews.
A member of the Milan Bar Association, the Milan Criminal Bar Association and the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA), he has extensive experience in extradition proceedings, having handled cases involving requests from China, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, Moldova, Mauritius and Israel.
He lectures at the University of Milan, Roma Tre University and Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in Pisa, and has taught at the School for the Judiciary (Scuola Superiore della Magistratura).
He writes and edites books with the main italian legal publishers and he is author of several academic publications, in top ranked (“band A”) scientific reviews, on criminal law, corporate criminal liability and extradition proceedings.
Country Contributor
Giulia Borgna
Saccucci & Partners
Founding Partner of Saccucci & Partners and Head of the International Desk in Tirana. Member of the Bar of Rome.
Giulia started working with Professor Saccucci in 2012 and co-founded Saccucci & Partners in 2017. Prior to joining the firm, Giulia worked at Baker & McKenzie and Lana-Lagostena Bassi.
Giulia specializes in complex and high-profile litigation in the field of public international law and human rights, with a particular focus on criminal law, extradition, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and immigration. She acts for a wide range of clients before international courts, particularly the European Court of Human Rights. She has sound experience in matters involving the Republic of Albania.
Giulia obtained her Ph.D. cum laude in Human Rights and International Law from the University of Palermo. While working on her doctoral thesis, Giulia was a Visiting Fellow at Middlesex University in London and at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg. From 2017 to 2021, Giulia lectured on International Criminal Law at LUMSA University in Rome. From 2021, Giulia is Adjunct Professor at LUMSA University of European Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, with a particular focus on Extradition and European Arrest Warrant.
Giulia is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of eXtradando.
Giulia is a member of the editorial board of Diritto e questioni pubbliche and Giurisprudenza Penale, and a member of Extradition Lawyers’ Association, Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum and the Legal Experts Advisory Panel (LEAP) of Fair Trials International.
She lectures regularly on human rights and has written on various topics of international law and human rights.
Country Contributor
Amedeo Barletta
Studio Legale Barletta
Amedei Barletta is a criminal lawyer.
He was admitted to the Bar in 2007 and to practise before the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in 2017. He graduated in Law from the University of Naples Federico II, obtained a PhD in Law from the European School of Advanced Studies, and teaches law at LUISS University in Rome.
He has worked for the Italian Government as legal adviser in the Cabinet of former Minister for European Affairs Emma Bonino, and served as a référendaire at the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Cabinet of Advocate General Poiares Maduro.
He is a partner at Studio Legale Barletta and a member of the Unione Camere Penali Italiane (UCPI) and the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA).
Within UCPI, he is a member of the Commission responsible for relations with the international legal profession and international institutions.
Country Contributor
Nicola Canestrini
CanestriniLex
Nicola Canestrini is a partner at CanestiniLex, a law firm based in Rovereto, Italy.
Nicola is one of Italy’s leading experts in international criminal law with a particular focus on extradition and INTERPOL abuse. With over two decades of experience, his work stands out for its meticulous and innovative approach to protecting the fundamental rights of individuals involved in international judicial cooperation proceedings.
Nicola has successfully represented numerous clients in extradition cases before all the major Italian and European courts, earning a reputation for excellence and professional rigor.
His expertise extends to addressing irregularities in the use of INTERPOL mechanisms, particularly the misuse of Red Notices to target political dissidents and other individuals subject to unjust persecution. In addition to his practice, Nicola has been deeply engaged in academic and public discourse.
He has delivered lectures at prestigious institutions such as Harvard Law School and the University of Oxford, addressing key topics in international criminal law, from transnational justice to the regulation of judicial cooperation tools.
His scholarly contributions, published in leading Italian criminal law journals, serve as a reference point for academics and practitioners seeking to understand the contemporary challenges of international criminal law.
Country Contributor
Angelo Stirone
Studio Legale Gamberini
Angelo Stirone is an Italian criminal defence lawyer registered with the Bologna Bar Association.
He currently practises at Studio Legale Gamberini, with a focus on criminal law, European criminal law, and international criminal law. He has developed significant expertise in European Arrest Warrants, extradition proceedings, the recognition and enforcement of foreign criminal judgments, as well as Interpol Red Notices and Schengen Information System (SIS) alerts.
Angelo is a Teaching and Research Assistant in International and European Criminal Law at the University of Bologna. He is also the Founder and former President of the Association of Young International Criminal Lawyers (YICL), a non-profit organization focused on international criminal law, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and public international law more generally.
Prior to joining Studio Legale Gamberini, Angelo worked at a top-tier international law firm in London, where he advised sovereign States, State-owned entities, international organizations, and private parties. In particular, he was involved in proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and worked extensively on international criminal law, international humanitarian law, and human rights law. He also worked at the Office of the Prosecutor of the United Nations International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) in The Hague, where he was part of the prosecution team in the case of Prosecutor v. Stanišić & Simatović.
He holds a Law Degree from the University of Bologna and an Advanced LL.M. in Public International Law, with a specialization in International Criminal Law, from Leiden University. His LL.M. thesis, “Hacking and International Law: The Anonymous Group and the Syrian Electronic Army”, was subsequently published in the Journal of International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict. Angelo is the author of numerous academic publications in leading legal journals, as well as book chapters, and of the monograph The European Arrest Warrant: A Grammar of Surrender in the European Legal Area (Giappichelli Editore).
Country Contributor
Federico Cappelletti
Studio Legale Cappelletti
Federico Cappelletti is a criminal defence lawyer based in Venice, Italy, admitted to practice before the Italian Higher Jurisdictions and the International Criminal Court.
His practice focuses on tax and white-collar crime, international cooperation in criminal matters, extradition and European Arrest Warrant proceedings, with particular emphasis on human rights-based defence strategies and litigation before Italian and European courts.
He regularly assists clients in transnational criminal cases involving surrender procedures, mutual legal assistance, asset recovery, and the protection of fundamental rights in cross-border proceedings.
His institutional and professional roles include serving on the Council of the International Criminal Bar, acting as Deputy Secretary General of the Institut des Droits de l’Homme des Avocats Européens, sitting on the European and International Law Commission of the Italian National Bar Council, and coordinating the Observatory on European Law of the Union of Italian Criminal Chambers.
Within the European Criminal Bar Association, he contributes to work on human rights, cybercrime, technology and defence rights in digital criminal proceedings. In this capacity, he has represented the ECBA in expert consultations organised by the European Commission and the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights.
Appointed by the Italian Ministry of Justice, he represented the Italian legal profession in the 9th and 10th rounds of mutual evaluations conducted with experts from the Council of the European Union. He regularly lectures in Italy and abroad on European and international criminal law, has authored several publications in these fields, leads EU co-funded projects on judicial cooperation and fundamental rights, and is registered as a lecturer with the Italian School for the Judiciary.

Country Contributor
Gianmarco Bondi
Studio Legale Bondi
Gianmarco Bondi is a criminal defence lawyer at Studio Legale Bondi in Venice and a teaching assistant and exam committee member in Criminal Law, Occupational Health and Safety Criminal Law, and Environmental Criminal Law at the Department of Law of the University of Ferrara.
His practice also focuses on international and EU cooperation in criminal matters, with particular emphasis on extradition and European Arrest Warrant proceedings. He has been appointed as an expert witness in extradition proceedings before the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London.
Gianmarco regularly publishes on criminal law and cooperation in criminal matters in Italian and international journals, contributes to edited volumes, and collaborates with editorial boards. He frequently gives lectures and speaks at conferences and seminars in Italy and abroad.
He graduated cum laude in Law from the University of Bologna, with a final dissertation in Criminal Law and Law of the European Union on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests through criminal law, written after a research period at the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of the European Commission in Brussels. He completed an academic year at King’s College London and a traineeship at the London office of an Italian law firm. He later trained as a lawyer at the Milan Bar, where he developed specific expertise in Corporate Criminal Law. He passed the Bar exam before the Court of Appeal of Milan, receiving the “Marco Ubertini” First Prize for scoring the highest grade.
He holds a PhD in Criminal Law from the University of Ferrara, with a thesis on positive obligations in criminal law under the European Convention on Human Rights, following a research stay at the Institut für Strafrecht und Kriminologie of the University of Vienna. He then served as a postdoctoral researcher in History of Law at the University of Ferrara, with a project on the origins and development of the general part of criminal law in common law systems, during which he was also a visiting academic at the Institute of European and Comparative Law of the University of Oxford.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving Italy

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →