🇮🇹 Italy →

Where the Court of Appeal has refused the surrender request and ordered the release of the requested person, any appeal lodged against the order imposing a custodial precautionary measure must be considered inadmissible due to a supervening lack of interest. However, the interest in bringing such an appeal “revives” where the appellant has personally stated—and duly substantiated—that he intends to rely on a favourable ruling for the purposes of seeking compensation for wrongful detention.

The interest in obtaining a ruling on appeal against a pre-trial detention order persists even where such order has been revoked during the course of the de libertate proceedings, provided that a decision annulling the measure may constitute, pursuant to Article 314(2) of the Italian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.

The interest in filing an appeal—being a condition for the admissibility of any challenge—must be directly linked to the primary and immediate effects of the contested decision, and exists only where the appeal is capable of producing a more favourable situation for the appellant through the removal of a prejudicial measure. In the present case—where surrender had already been carried out—the applicant did not even expressly assert an interest in obtaining a decision to be relied upon for the purposes of Article 314 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (compensation for wrongful detention). Accordingly, the execution of the surrender to the requesting State results in the appeal being declared inadmissible due to a supervening lack of interest, where the requested person challenges the refusal to revoke or declare ineffective the custodial measure imposed during the extradition proceedings.

In proceedings challenging a custodial precautionary measure that has meanwhile been revoked or has become ineffective, the appellant retains an interest in pursuing the appeal for the purposes of a future claim for compensation for wrongful detention only where such interest is specifically and adequately substantiated. In particular, the requested person must personally advance concrete and reasoned arguments demonstrating the prejudice that would result from the failure to obtain a favourable ruling. Accordingly, a finding that the suspect retains a present and concrete interest in challenging a custodial measure that has lost effectiveness during the proceedings is conditional upon a clear and unequivocal manifestation of the suspect’s intention to rely on the requested ruling in support of a future action for compensation for wrongful detention.