🇮🇹 Italy →

The requested person challenged her continued detention pending extradition to Venezuela, arguing that the applicable time limit was the 40-day period provided by Italian procedural law. The Supreme Court held that the bilateral Italy–Venezuela Extradition Treaty constitutes the applicable special regime and validly provides a 100-day period for provisional arrest instead of the domestic 40-day limit; despite its historical origin, that period remains reasonable and objectively proportionate today, having regard to the involvement of both judicial and diplomatic authorities in the requesting State. The Court further held that, in extradition proceedings concerning an EU citizen requested by a third State, the Petruhhin mechanism does not apply at the precautionary stage, but only when the merits of the extradition request are examined. The case was nevertheless remitted because the requested person remained in custody after expiry of the 100-day period and the legal basis for the continued detention required further verification.

The failure or delay in transmitting the documents, expressly required by the Treaty, to the Ministry of Justice and/or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs entails the immediate loss of effectiveness of the precautionary measure. Indeed, since the matter concerns restrictions on personal liberty, the mandatory time limits laid down by the treaty provisions and by the corresponding rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be regarded as essential and applied with the utmost strictness (as affirmed by the Constitutional Court).

Extradition to the United States and loss of effectiveness of pre-trial detention in the absence of a timely extradition request (and supporting documents) within 45 days The extradition treaty between Italy and the United States provides that, within 45 days of the arrest, the United States must transmit to Italy the formal extradition request together with the documentation required under Article X. The purpose is to prevent provisional arrest from turning into prolonged detention without the formal legal basis constituted by a proper extradition request. In the present case, the arrest was carried out on 10/10/2025, from which date the above-mentioned peremptory time limit began to run. Since the Court of Appeal rendered its decision at a time when, within the mandatory time limits set by the Treaty, neither the extradition request nor the required documentation had yet been received — as was instead necessary — the challenged order must be quashed without remand and the custodial measure currently in force must be revoked.

Pursuant to Article 16(4) of the European Convention on Extradition, provisional coercive measures applied to a person subject to extradition proceedings shall be revoked if, within forty days from the provisional application of such measure, the request for extradition and the supporting documentation have not been received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Ministry of Justice.

The replacement by the requesting State of the extradition title for the same facts, prior to the decision of the Court of Appeal, does not constitute a ground precluding a finding of extraditability. It has been held that “there is nothing to prevent, provided that the cause of action remains unchanged, the legal basis of the extradition request from being subsequently and formally replaced by the requesting State before the Court of Appeal renders its decision. Such a novatio integrates the extradition request, thereby becoming part of it, and does not infringe any defence rights, since the person concerned is made aware of it prior to the decision.”

The requested person was placed under precautionary custody in Italy pursuant to Article 715 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with an extradition request submitted by a foreign State. The defence challenged the lawfulness of the custodial measure, arguing that the requesting State had failed to transmit the underlying arrest warrant within the mandatory 40-day period provided by the European Convention on Extradition and Italian procedural law. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation annulled a previous decision rejecting the revocation request and remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal for verification of the timely transmission of the foreign arrest warrant. On remand, the Milan Court of Appeal found that the relevant arrest warrant had only been transmitted several months after the arrest of the requested person and therefore outside the statutory deadline. The court consequently revoked the precautionary custodial measure and ordered the immediate release of the requested person.

In the context of a European Arrest Warrant, the failure to attach to the warrant certain documents (judgement) enabling an understanding of the facts attributed to the requested person does not constitute a ground for refusing surrender, provided that the issuing State has nonetheless supplied the Italian judicial authority with all the elements necessary to carry out its review. Therefore, where a detailed and clarifying summary of the facts underlying the proceedings has been obtained, no defect arises.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Greek judicial authority for drug-related offences, including introduction, purchase, transport and possession of narcotic substances. The requested person had been arrested in Italy and placed under a coercive measure, later replaced by an obligation to reside in a specified municipality. The Court of Appeal of Bologna requested supplementary documentation from the Greek authorities, including the restrictive measure underlying the warrant, if different from the judgment already transmitted, and the report required under Italian EAW legislation, with particular reference to the sources of evidence. The Greek authorities replied that there were no further restrictive measures beyond the transmitted judgment and that the only source of evidence was the requested person’s failure to appear. The Court held that, despite its request, the required documentation under Articles 6, 16 and 17 of Law No. 69/2005 had not been provided. In particular, the issuing authority failed to transmit a sufficiently detailed report clarifying the facts and evidentiary elements supporting the warrant. The Court therefore refused surrender and declared the coercive measure ineffective.