🇮🇹 Italy → 🇺🇸 United States

The request by the Minister of Justice for the revocation of the custodial measure leaves no room for discretion, as the law provides that “revocation shall always be ordered if the Minister of Justice so requests.” In such cases, where the proceedings are pending before the Court of Cassation, that Court has jurisdiction to decide on the revocation of the measure, and the immediate release of the person sought for extradition must be ordered.

The decision on an extradition request—even where it takes the form of a ruling of no need to proceed due to the person’s absence from the national territory—falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal sitting in its collegiate composition, and not of a delegated judge. Accordingly, where, as in the present case, the delegated judge has exercised a power that the legal system reserves to the Court of Appeal, the impugned decision must be deemed affected by absolute nullity for lack of judicial capacity, as it entails a violation of the constitutional principle of the natural judge pre-established by law.

The absence of the person sought for extradition, even if due to a “deliberate escape,” results in a ruling that the case should not proceed; the presence of the person sought for extradition in the requested State is an essential prerequisite for the application of the extradition process: if that person is no longer within the territory of the Italian Republic, this essential prerequisite is no longer met

The Court of Appeal must refuse extradition “where reasons of health or age entail a risk of consequences of exceptional gravity for the requested person.” Such a ground for refusal may apply not only where adequate medical treatment cannot be ensured in the requesting State, but also where the extradition procedure itself is liable to prejudice the person’s health. In particular, such prejudice does not arise from any negative impact on the individual’s health, but only where extradition may result in consequences of exceptional gravity, namely serious and objectively verifiable pathological effects. Accordingly, the Court cannot confine its assessment to verifying whether the healthcare facilities in the requesting State are adequate to meet the person’s therapeutic needs, but must also take into account the concrete impact—and thus the potential adverse effects—of the surrender procedure on the requested person’s health. This includes, for example, the difficulties and possible complications arising from the transfer abroad or the need to avoid interruption of ongoing medical treatment.