In extradition proceedings, a decision refusing to revoke or replace detention must be translated into a language understood by the requested person where their lack of knowledge of Italian has already been established. Translation of the operative part alone is insufficient where the reasons are filed later, since the person must be able to understand the grounds for the continued deprivation of liberty and exercise their defence rights effectively. Moreover, when deciding any application concerning the imposition, revocation or modification of detention, the court must assess whether objective, reliable and up-to-date evidence indicates a real risk that the requested person would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting State. Such an assessment cannot be deferred exclusively to the merits stage of the extradition proceedings.

In matters of extradition to a foreign State, a bar arises where there is a risk to the individual’s fundamental rights, particularly where the requesting State—no longer a member of the Council of Europe and involved in an armed conflict—cannot provide assurances that there is no current danger to the life or physical integrity of the person sought, in light of the widespread, severe and exceptional nature of the hostilities affecting its entire territory, where such a situation is objectively established, including as a matter of common knowledge. In the present case, moreover, since Poland—an EU Member State—has granted the requested person subsidiary protection, extradition to a third State could not, in any event, proceed without prior consultation with Poland. Poland has, in fact, already refused extradition to the Russian Federation on the basis of the same arrest warrant and for the same offences underlying the present proceedings; it is therefore reasonable to assume that such consultation would lead to a negative outcome.

In matters of extradition to a foreign State, when assessing the existence of grounds precluding the issuance of a decision in favor of surrender - which, pursuant to Article 714(3) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, also bar the adoption of coercive measures aimed at securing its execution - the Court of Appeal is required to determine whether, on the basis of objective and reliable elements, there is a risk that the person sought will be subjected, in the requesting State, to inhuman or degrading treatment (also considering the impact of Russia - Ukraine war).

The interest in obtaining a ruling on appeal against a pre-trial detention order persists even where such order has been revoked during the course of the de libertate proceedings, provided that a decision annulling the measure may constitute, pursuant to Article 314(2) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, a prerequisite for claiming compensation for wrongful detention, where the coercive measure was issued or maintained in the absence of the legal conditions for its application. On the one hand, where personal liberty has been restricted in the context of a passive extradition procedure that has concluded without a final decision granting extradition, the right to compensation may arise. On the other hand, for the applicant’s interest in pursuing the appeal to be recognised—specifically in view of relying on a favourable decision for the purposes of a future compensation claim—it is necessary that such interest be expressly and duly substantiated by the person concerned. This requires a specific and reasoned submission demonstrating, in concrete terms, the prejudice that would result from the failure to obtain such a ruling, and must be made personally by the applicant.

Health conditions and extradition. The Russian Federation requested the extradition of an elderly Russian business executive for prosecution in connection with alleged fraud, embezzlement and corruption offences. The Court held that the requested person’s severe cardiac condition, diabetes and hypertension, requiring uninterrupted treatment and continuous medical monitoring, made surrender and the ensuing detention abroad incompatible with his health and exposed him to a concrete risk of significant pathological consequences. The Court regarded those health conditions as the decisive ground for refusal under Article 705(2)(c-bis) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. It also considered Russia’s expulsion from the Council of Europe and the impending cessation of ECHR protection as an additional factor undermining the expectation of humane detention, and therefore rejected the extradition request.

risk of inhuman or degrading treatment: for the purposes of assessing the ground for refusal provided for by article 698(1) of the italian code of criminal procedure, the court of appeal must verify whether the penalty provided for under the law of the requesting state—regardless of its formal designation—effectively amounts to treatment that violates the fundamental rights of the individual.

Article 59 of the russian criminal code provides that the death penalty shall not be applied to a person extradited if the legislation of the requested state does not provide for it, or if its non-application forms part of a specific condition of the extradition. In this respect, a provision of positive law within the legal system of the requesting state, according to which the death penalty is not prescribed for the offence for which extradition is sought, must be regarded as an absolute guarantee for the purposes of granting extradition.

The case concerned a Russian request for extradition from Italy for prosecution in relation to fraud allegedly committed through abuse of official position. The requested person opposed extradition, arguing that the accusation was false and politically motivated because of his opposition activity in Russia. He also produced evidence that he had applied for international protection in Spain before his arrest in Italy and had been authorised to remain there pending determination of that request. The Court of Appeal of Bologna refused extradition. It noted that, although the pending asylum procedure in Spain did not formally create an automatic bar to extradition, it was a relevant element, especially because the Spanish authorities indicated that, had the arrest occurred in Spain, extradition proceedings would have been stayed pending the asylum decision. The Court also found that the defence had substantiated a concrete risk under Article 698 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. The materials produced described repeated human rights violations in Russia, including detention conditions incompatible with human dignity, excessive pre-trial detention, political misuse of detention, coerced confessions and ill-treatment, with particular concern for the region involved in the case. Those general risks were connected to the requested person’s specific situation through evidence suggesting that a co-accused had allegedly been pressured and detained to make accusations against him, and through defence investigations indicating a risk of political retaliation. The Russian authorities failed to respond to specific requests for information on these allegations. The Court therefore held that the combined asylum-related and persecution-risk factors prevented extradition.