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.

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.

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.

In light of the principle of mutual trust among the Member States of the European Union, it must be presumed that detention conditions in Romania do not give rise to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. That presumption may be rebutted—and the executing judicial authority thereby required to seek further information—only where a specific and concrete risk of a breach of fundamental rights is put forward. Accordingly, a request for information is not an automatic consequence of a surrender request, but must be supported by specific elements advanced by the applicant or otherwise known to the Court of Appeal (for example, where serious systemic deficiencies in prison conditions in a given Member State constitute a matter of common knowledge or have been the subject of recent rulings by the supreme courts).

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Dolj Tribunal, Romania, and confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Craiova, for offences of human trafficking and exploitation of prostitution. The requested person opposed surrender, arguing that some of the alleged conduct had been committed in Italy and that surrender could therefore be refused on territoriality grounds. The Italian Supreme Court held that, where the facts underlying a European Arrest Warrant were committed wholly or partly in Italy, the optional ground for refusal based on territoriality applies only if criminal proceedings for the same facts are already pending in Italy. Since no such domestic proceedings were pending, the territoriality objection was rejected. The Court also dismissed the challenge based on detention conditions, noting that the Romanian authorities had identified a different detention facility from the one criticised by the defence and had provided information on available activities and minimum personal space. The appeal was declared inadmissible and the surrender order remained in force.

The executing judicial authority is required only to verify the existence of a valid legal basis for the surrender, and cannot review either the validity of such basis or the merits of any remedies pursued within the legal system of the issuing State. Surrender is therefore lawful where the European Arrest Warrant has been issued on the basis of a conviction that is enforceable but not yet final, since Article 8 of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 attaches relevance solely to the enforceability of the judgment, and not to its finality, as an essential condition of the system of cooperation aimed at the surrender of requested persons between EU Member States. Accordingly, the filing of an application seeking leave to appeal out of time is irrelevant for the purposes of surrender, as such application does not, in itself, affect the enforceability of the judgment underlying the European Arrest Warrant.