🇮🇹 Italy →

The surrender of the requested person to the requesting State renders inadmissible, for supervening lack of interest, any appeal lodged by that person against the order rejecting the request for revocation or for a declaration of ineffectiveness of the coercive precautionary measure imposed in the same proceedings. As regards the relationship with unlawful detention, an interest in challenging a personal precautionary measure after its termination can be recognised only where a specific issue is expressly raised as to whether the conditions for that remedy are met. Accordingly, such a challenge cannot be pursued in relation to a precautionary measure in respect of which the finding that the conditions for surrender were satisfied — a finding not contested on appeal — has been embodied in an order that has since become final.

Compensation for wrongful detention is not payable where, at the time of the arrest and the subsequent imposition of the custodial measure, the arrest of the person concerned was entirely lawful and only thereafter a ruling of inadmissibility was issued due to the disappearance of the underlying basis, following the requesting State’s failure to submit or pursue the extradition request. Accordingly, where a provisional arrest and the subsequent provisional custodial measure were ordered for a period of 30 days — a period even shorter than the forty days provided for under Article 715(6) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure — in compliance with the applicable bilateral extradition treaty, in respect of a person subject to an arrest warrant issued by a foreign judicial authority, and on the basis of a finding of a risk of absconding, there is no scope to recognise wrongful detention, not even in the form of so-called “formal” unlawfulness.

In extradition proceedings, as regards compensation for unlawful detention and the “formal unlawfulness” of the custodial measure, until a complete extradition request has been received and translated into Italian, it is not possible to verify whether the conditions for surrender are actually met, nor can it be assumed that the requesting State will fail to submit the extradition request within the prescribed time limits (with the consequent lapse of the custodial measure). Therefore, at this initial stage, the Court must assess the existence of a risk of flight on the basis of the elements available at that time (and this assessment will form the basis for any subsequent evaluation of unlawful detention).

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.

In matters of compensation for unlawful detention, the deprivation of personal liberty suffered within the framework of passive extradition proceedings may be deemed unjust even where those proceedings do not end with a decision refusing extradition, but with a purely procedural ruling, such as a decision of no grounds to proceed due to the requested person’s departure.

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.