In European Arrest Warrant proceedings, the Italian nationality of the requested person excludes the need for the Court of Appeal to assess their settled residence or integration in Italy. Such assessment may be relevant, as an optional ground for refusal under Article 18-bis(2) of Law No. 69/2005, only in the case of an EAW for the execution of a sentence or detention order, namely one based on a foreign judicial decision imposing a custodial sentence or detention measure. Conversely, where the EAW is issued for the purposes of prosecution, surrender of an Italian national may be ordered, provided that surrender is made conditional upon the person’s return to Italy to serve any custodial sentence that may ultimately be imposed, pursuant to Article 19(2) of Law No. 69/2005.

Where there is a potential overlap between the charges forming the basis of a European Arrest Warrant and the provisional charges brought in criminal proceedings pending in Italy, the Court is required to assess the applicability of the optional ground for refusal set out in Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005. Under this provision, surrender may be refused where criminal proceedings are pending in Italy in respect of the same facts underlying the European Arrest Warrant. In the case at hand, the Court of Appeal essentially failed to ascertain whether this condition was met, having merely stated that the predicate offences were different, without carrying out any specific assessment in relation to the offence of criminal association. In so doing, it breached Article 18-bis, which—according to settled case law—requires the Court of Appeal, where the request for surrender concerns acts committed in part within the national territory, to verify both the identity of the facts and whether criminal proceedings are already pending in Italy in respect of the conduct underlying the European Arrest Warrant.

Grounds of appeal concerning the assessment of the person’s integration within the territory of the State are inadmissible where, although formally framed as a violation of law, they in fact relate to the reasoning of the decision. Article 22 of Law No. 69 of 22 April 2005 does not allow an appeal to the Court of Cassation against a judgment of the Court of Appeal on a surrender request on the basis of defects in reasoning. In the present case, the ground of appeal—though labelled as an erroneous application of the law—essentially amounts to alleging defects in the reasoning of the contested judgment. The applicant, in fact, challenged aspects relating to the merits of the Court of Appeal’s assessment of his integration in Italy. However, it is not for the Court of Cassation to verify the logical soundness of that assessment, nor to re-examine the documents on file in order to determine whether the evaluation carried out on the merits could lead to different conclusions. In particular, the Court of Appeal clarified—on grounds not open to criticism—that the documentation provided merely demonstrated a very recent presence of the requested person in Italy, considering that the marriage to the person holding the lease of the accommodation had been celebrated in February 2025 and that the declaration only indicated that the person worked at his car wash, without specifying since when. The Court therefore held that there was no evidence of the requested person’s genuine integration in Italy.