The European Convention on Extradition does not empower the judicial authority of the requested State to review whether the judgment underlying the extradition request is enforceable, once that judgment has been classified as enforceable by the requesting State. Moreover, under the system established by the European Convention on Extradition, the judicial authority of the requested State is not entitled to review the reasoning of the conviction judgment. Accordingly, the conditions for extradition may be found to be satisfied even where the statement of reasons has not been transmitted, unless the person sought alleges that the foreign proceedings involved a violation of fundamental rights or that the judgment contains provisions contrary to the fundamental principles of the Italian legal order.

Moldova requested the extradition of the requested person for the enforcement of a three-year and six-month prison sentence for theft. The Court of Appeal ordered detention pending extradition, relying on the seriousness of the offence, the length of the sentence and the person’s allegedly brief presence in Italy. The Court of Cassation held that this reasoning was merely apparent because flight risk must be based on specific, concrete and current circumstances drawn from the requested person’s individual situation. The seriousness of the conviction alone was insufficient, particularly where the defence had produced evidence of stable residence, employment and family ties in Italy. As the lower court had also failed to explain why detention in prison was the only suitable measure, the Court quashed the order without remand, declared the detention measure ineffective and ordered the requested person’s immediate release.

The case concerned a Romanian national sought by Moldova to serve a three-year sentence for facilitating prostitution. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the challenges based on double criminality, alleged discrimination in the revocation of the suspended sentence and the foreseeability of the criminal conviction, holding that these issues either concerned the merits of the foreign judgment or did not disclose an extradition bar. It found, however, that although the information provided by the Moldovan authorities was sufficient as regards the general prison system, it did not adequately address the requested person’s individual risk of reprisals arising from abuses allegedly suffered and reported during a previous period of detention in the same prison. The Court therefore annulled the decision and remanded the case so that specific assurances could be obtained to exclude that concrete and personal risk.

Moldova requested the extradition of the requested person for the execution of an eight-year custodial sentence for aggravated fraud. The Italian Supreme Court held that, where qualified sources indicate a general risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting State, the executing court must obtain complete, current and individualised information on the detention conditions that the person will face. It considered the information supplied by the Moldovan authorities sufficient because it identified the relevant prisons and described the material, sanitary, healthcare and personal-safety arrangements applicable to the requested person. The Court further clarified that the European Convention on Extradition requires the requesting State to produce an enforceable judgment of conviction, but does not require that judgment to be final or irrevocable, and therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld extradition.

Extradition requested in relation to two separate convictions, but transmitted by the Italian Minister of Justice with respect to only one of them (without mentioning the other). Stating — as argued by the Prosecutor – that this was merely a “clerical error in the transmission note” is debatable, as there is no certainty as to the position that the Minister of Justice intended to take with regard to the extradition request relating to the second judgment. The ministerial silence concerning the “second judgment”—especially when contrasted with the explicit stance taken on the “first judgment”—leaves room for both possible interpretations: on the one hand, the hypothesis of a material error; on the other hand, an implicit expression of intent not to proceed with the extradition request. Accordingly, interpreting such silence one way or the other is, from a logical standpoint, entirely open to dispute. It is also possible that the theory of a material error will ultimately prove to be correct in practice. But it is equally possible that the alternative explanation is the “true” one. Preferring one hypothesis over the other—by interpreting an equivocal element—risks encroaching upon a sphere that, as noted, falls within the prerogatives and responsibilities of the Minister.

A judgment rejecting an extradition request — even where such rejection follows the mere withdrawal of the request by the requesting State — precludes the adoption of a subsequent decision granting extradition following the submission by the same State of a new request concerning the same facts. On the contrary, a decision of a purely procedural nature (such as one based on the absence of the requested person from the national territory) is not capable of producing the preclusive effect. Accordingly, even if the sought person is no longer present within Italian territory, the person has an interest in obtaining a decision on the merits rather than a merely procedural ruling. However, if the Court has already obtained and deemed adequate the assurances requested from the requesting State, it may no longer issue a judgment rejecting the extradition request on the merits, but only a decision of “no grounds to proceed”.

Prison conditions in Moldova: where an alert situation exists, arising from the established presence of risk conditions, the necessary assessment by the Italian courts requires that specific assurances be obtained from the issuing State. Such assurances cannot be limited to general statements, but must be individualized in relation to the situation of the person concerned by the surrender proceedings. Moreover, the scrutiny of the guarantees regarding the treatment of the requested person must be all the more rigorous, considering that the offence for which the conviction was issued would not be classified as serious under our legal system.

Pursuant to Article 16(4) of the European Convention on Extradition, provisional coercive measures applied to a person subject to extradition proceedings shall be revoked if, within forty days from the provisional application of such measure, the request for extradition and the supporting documentation have not been received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Ministry of Justice.

The Court of Appeal must assess, including by requesting supplementary information, the circumstances alleged by the person concerned regarding the risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, obtaining “individualised” information on the detention regime that will be applied to the extraditee and evaluating, in addition to the general conditions existing in the prisons of the requesting State, also in light of his or her age and state of health, whether necessary by seeking assurances that the person concerned will be able to continue receiving treatment within the penitentiary facilities of the requesting State. Moreover, in several rulings, the Supreme Court has excluded the risk of persons extradited to Moldova being subjected to degrading treatment, precisely by relying on the reliability of the information provided by the Moldovan institutional authorities.

In extradition proceedings, the so-called "Petruhhin mechanism", although applicable during the pretrial phase, always requires citizenship of an EU Member State: this mechanism, actually, does not apply indiscriminately, but only to the benefit of persons for whom the provisions of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) regarding Union citizenship and Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) give rise to the applicability of the Treaties

Surrender may be granted where the assurances provided exclude the existence of impediments, insofar as they are based on up-to-date and individualized information relating to the situation of the person concerned by the surrender proceedings, both as regards the adequacy of the penitentiary facilities and the actual treatment that will be afforded to the requested person with reference to the detention conditions in the receiving institutions. The defence submissions are, in fact, generic, as they merely raise doubts as to the reliability of such assurances, relying on information predating that acquired in the proceedings and failing to engage with the factual elements set out in the challenged decision, which specifically records the space and conditions guaranteed to the applicant in both penitentiary institutions.

Where information from authoritative and reliable sources is available—first and foremost in light of the findings of the european court of human rights in judgments concerning the requesting state, as well as the reports of 30 june 2016 and 13 december 2018 of the european committee for the prevention of torture of the council of europe (cpt), and the united nations report of 21 december 2017 on prison overcrowding and degrading treatment in moldovan prisons—the judicial authority must assess and weigh the concrete risk that the requested person may be exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment. Such risk must be evaluated in connection with the conditions of detention in the prisons of the requesting state, particularly where linked to overcrowding or other structural, rather than merely contingent, deficiencies.

The case concerned a Moldovan request for extradition from Italy for the execution of an eighteen-year prison sentence imposed for murder. The proceedings followed an earlier annulment by the Italian Supreme Court, which had required the Court of Appeal to obtain specific and updated information from the Moldovan authorities on the prison where the requested person would be detained and on the actual detention conditions, including overcrowding, safety, hygiene and health care. After receiving supplementary information from the Moldovan Ministry of Justice, the Court of Appeal of Bologna held that the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment had been excluded. The Moldovan authorities indicated that extradited Moldovan nationals would be held in designated cells at Chisinau prison, with four square metres of personal space per detainee, adequate ventilation and lighting, separated sanitary facilities, daily outdoor exercise, access to hygiene, food and medical care, including treatment in external health facilities where necessary, and unrestricted access to lawyers on working days. The Court also found that the extradition request was supported by the required documents, that the foreign conviction was final and enforceable, and that double criminality was satisfied. It therefore declared that the conditions for extradition to Moldova were met.

The case concerned a Moldovan request for extradition from Italy for the execution of a final sentence imposed for corruption, together with the cumulation of a previous partially unserved sentence for aggravated fraud. The Court of Appeal of Bologna held that the conditions for extradition were satisfied. The request was supported by a translated final judgment, from which it appeared that the requested person had been able to participate in the Moldovan proceedings and had admitted the charges. Double criminality was also satisfied, since the conduct corresponded under Italian law to corruption and fraud offences. The Court rejected the defence argument that extradition would expose the requested person to treatment contrary to fundamental rights. It held that no concrete evidence had been produced to support that allegation. Referring to Supreme Court case law, the Court stated that the requested person bears the burden of submitting objective, precise, reliable and updated elements concerning detention conditions in the requesting State, capable of showing a real risk of treatment incompatible with fundamental rights. In the absence of such material, and noting that the foreign judgment provided for detention in a semi-closed prison regime, the Court found no obstacle under Articles 698 or 705 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. Extradition to Moldova was therefore granted.

In extradition proceedings, the Italian Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 718(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to decide an application for the revocation or replacement of a precautionary measure only when the case file is before it for the determination of whether the legal conditions for extradition are satisfied. That exceptional jurisdiction does not arise merely because an appeal concerning the coercive measure is pending before the Supreme Court. Applying this principle, the Court ordered the transmission of the case file to the Court of Appeal as the competent court to decide the application for revocation or replacement of the measure.

The requested person must be informed of the subject-matter of the extradition proceedings. Accordingly, where such information did not cover additional episodes of fraud described in the custodial order subsequently transmitted in support of the extradition request, this gives rise to a ground of nullity. Indeed, in order to safeguard defence rights, once the subject-matter of the extradition proceedings has changed, the judicial authority must order the appearance of the person concerned; failure to do so results in nullity for violation of the right of defence and, consequently, in the invalidity of the acts carried out in the proceedings.