Romania sought the surrender of the requested person for the execution of a final sentence of one year and ten months’ imprisonment for unlawful entry into a dwelling, aggravated criminal damage, and driving under the influence of alcohol and psychotropic substances. The Court of Cassation held that the optional ground for refusal based on residence and social integration did not apply because continuous residence in Italy for at least five years had not been established. It further held that double criminality concerns only whether the conduct constitutes an offence in both legal systems, and is unaffected by the fact that prosecution in Italy would require a complaint by the victim. The possible expiry of the limitation period under Italian law was likewise irrelevant, since limitation is no longer a ground for refusing surrender and, in any event, Italy had no jurisdiction over the offence committed in Romania.

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.

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.