Switzerland requested the extradition of the requested person for the enforcement of a final custodial sentence concerning drug-related offences and the unauthorised sale of medicinal products. The Italian courts had granted extradition only for drug trafficking and unauthorised pharmaceutical sales, while refusing it for possession of drugs for personal use because that conduct is subject only to an administrative sanction under Italian law and therefore fails the double criminality requirement. On appeal, the requested person incorrectly argued that extradition had also been granted for personal drug use. The Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that the refusal concerning that offence had already become final and that the extradition order was limited to the offences for which double criminality was satisfied.

The case concerned a requested person subject to an extradition request from Switzerland for drug trafficking and aggravated money laundering. The Court of Appeal of Ancona had ordered pre-trial custody in prison, relying essentially on the seriousness of the alleged offences and on a presumed flight risk. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that the court had failed to provide concrete reasons for the existence of a flight risk and had not assessed the adequacy of the custodial measure, including in light of her personal and family circumstances. The Supreme Court of Cassation held that precautionary measures must remain adequate and proportionate throughout their application and that the lower court’s reasoning was merely assertive and silent on adequacy. It therefore annulled the order and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal of Ancona for a new assessment, including possible substitution with house arrest.

The case concerned a Swiss request for extradition from Italy for prosecution in relation to aggravated continuing fraud and forgery of private documents. The alleged conduct involved a fraudulent investment scheme based on representations concerning gold trading and the ownership of mines, supported by allegedly false documents and communications. The Court of Appeal of Bologna held that extradition could be granted only in part. Double criminality was satisfied for the aggravated fraud allegations, which corresponded to fraud under Italian law and were not time-barred. However, extradition was refused for the offences of forgery of private documents, because the corresponding Italian offence had been repealed. The Court also examined whether Italian proceedings concerning similar or related conduct barred extradition. It held that only proceedings concerning the same historical facts and the same injured parties could prevent extradition, not merely proceedings involving analogous conduct or the same general context. Since overlap was established only for one specific fraud allegation already under investigation in Italy, extradition was excluded for that fact alone. Pending Italian proceedings for different facts did not prevent a finding of extraditability, since any decision to postpone surrender or allow temporary surrender fell within the competence of the Minister of Justice at the execution stage. The Court therefore declared the conditions for extradition satisfied for the aggravated fraud offences, except for the fact already pending before the Italian judicial authority, and refused extradition for private-document forgery.

The annulment with remittal (reversal and remand) of the judgment deciding on the extradition request does not directly affect the custodial measure ordered in connection with it, given the autonomy between those decisions, as confirmed by Article 714(4) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a time limit on the duration of the measure linked to the completion of the extradition proceedings.