Monaco

The case concerned a request by the Principality of Monaco for the extradition of an Italian national convicted of participation in a criminal association involved in money laundering and reinvestment of proceeds deriving from tax offences. The requested person argued that extradition should be refused because the offences were expired due to statute of limitations under Italian law and because the same facts had already been the subject of proceedings in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation held that, following Italy’s ratification of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, the assessment of statute of limitations issues must be carried out exclusively under the law of the requesting State, regardless of Monaco not being party to the Protocol. The Court further excluded any violation of the ne bis in idem principle, finding that the Italian and Monegasque proceedings concerned different criminal associations and distinct factual conduct. The Court also rejected arguments based on the absence, in Monaco, of institutions equivalent to suspended sentences or alternative measures to detention, holding that such differences do not violate fundamental principles of the Italian legal order.

Double criminality: for the purposes of verifying the so-called double criminality requirement, in the absence of specific treaty provisions, it is sufficient that the conduct, as described in the extradition request, constitutes—at the time of the decision on the request under the law of the requested State—any criminal offence. Case law has clarified that this review by the requested State is not intended to safeguard compliance with the principle of legality (which must instead be ensured by the requesting State), but merely serves to allow the “recognisability” of the criminal claim asserted by the requesting State and, consequently, the acceptance of the cooperation request underlying the extradition application.

The ministerial request for the application of pre-trial detention, submitted with a view to a favourable decision on surrender under article 704(3) of the italian code of criminal procedure, is not binding on the judicial authority. the custodial measure must in any event be ordered in light of the precautionary needs relating to the extradition proceedings, to be assessed pursuant to article 714(2) of the italian code of criminal procedure. accordingly, a concrete assessment is required as to the existence of a risk of absconding and the adequacy of the requested custodial measure.

The power to refuse the extradition of an Italian citizen may be exercised exclusively by the Minister of Justice, acting as the political authority, and not by the judicial authority, since such a decision pertains to the political dimension of cooperation between States. At the same time, the indication of custodial or precautionary needs in the judicial decision issued by the requesting State is not a necessary requirement for a decision granting extradition.