The requested person challenged an Italian appellate decision authorising surrender to Greece under a European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution for attempted murder and aggravated robbery. The Court held that the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment must be assessed also in relation to prosecution EAWs and requires an individualised examination of the actual detention conditions awaiting the requested person, including available personal space, overcrowding, time outside the cell, staffing levels and other compensating factors. It found that the appellate court had accepted the information supplied by the Greek authorities without sufficiently assessing whether those conditions complied with Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The judgment was therefore quashed and remitted for a new assessment of prison conditions, while the separate complaint concerning an alleged risk of discrimination connected with the requested person’s Kurdish ethnicity was dismissed.

The Italian Court of Appeal ordered the surrender of a person sought by Greece under a European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution in connection with aggravated theft and participation in a criminal organisation. The requested person challenged the adequacy of the factual information in the EAW, the failure to seek supplementary information, the continuing validity of the underlying arrest warrant and the failure to recognise his family and professional integration in Italy. The Supreme Court held that the EAW contained the minimum information required to identify the alleged conduct and that supplementary information may be requested only where necessary to decide on surrender, not for exploratory purposes or to reassess the evidential basis of the accusation. It also held that the requested person had failed to prove the stable and continuous five-year residence required for the safeguard applicable to prosecution EAWs, and declared the appeal inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal must carry out a specific assessment where the requested person, on the basis of objective, reliable, precise and properly updated elements, alleges a serious risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the issuing State. Once the existence of a general and current risk of inhuman treatment in the Member State has been established on the basis of reliable sources, it is necessary to verify whether, in the конкрет case, the person subject to the European Arrest Warrant would actually be exposed to such treatment. Accordingly, a targeted inquiry must be conducted in order to ascertain—through “individualised” information to be requested from the issuing State—the specific detention conditions to which the requested person will be subjected, with particular regard to those aspects identified by reliable sources as critical and capable of giving rise to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

Once the existence of a current, general risk of inhuman treatment in the issuing Member State has been established on the basis of reliable sources, it must then be assessed whether, in the specific case, the person subject to the European Arrest Warrant would be exposed to such treatment. Accordingly, a targeted assessment must be carried out to determine—through “individualised” information to be requested from the issuing State—the concrete conditions of detention to which the requested person will be subjected, with particular regard to those aspects identified by reliable sources as critical and capable of giving rise to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Where the content of such information excludes that risk, the Court of Appeal must, in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition, simply take note of it and proceed with the surrender, without requiring any additional guarantees regarding detention conditions. Conversely, where the risk is not excluded and the Court of Appeal must refuse surrender, the decision on surrender is to be regarded as issued “on the basis of the state of the file”, so that it may be reassessed if and when the obstacle to surrender ceases to exist.

In the context of a European Arrest Warrant, a surrender decision is lawful even where no Italian translation of the judgment underlying the request has been provided. Moreover, where the European Arrest Warrant expressly states that the requested person has the right to seek a retrial in the issuing State and that, following surrender, he will be expressly informed of that right, the condition required for surrender pursuant to a so-called “executive” warrant must be considered satisfied.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Greek judicial authority for drug-related offences, including introduction, purchase, transport and possession of narcotic substances. The requested person had been arrested in Italy and placed under a coercive measure, later replaced by an obligation to reside in a specified municipality. The Court of Appeal of Bologna requested supplementary documentation from the Greek authorities, including the restrictive measure underlying the warrant, if different from the judgment already transmitted, and the report required under Italian EAW legislation, with particular reference to the sources of evidence. The Greek authorities replied that there were no further restrictive measures beyond the transmitted judgment and that the only source of evidence was the requested person’s failure to appear. The Court held that, despite its request, the required documentation under Articles 6, 16 and 17 of Law No. 69/2005 had not been provided. In particular, the issuing authority failed to transmit a sufficiently detailed report clarifying the facts and evidentiary elements supporting the warrant. The Court therefore refused surrender and declared the coercive measure ineffective.