🇮🇹 Italy →

The requested person challenged an Italian appellate decision authorising surrender to Greece under a European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution for attempted murder and aggravated robbery. The Court held that the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment must be assessed also in relation to prosecution EAWs and requires an individualised examination of the actual detention conditions awaiting the requested person, including available personal space, overcrowding, time outside the cell, staffing levels and other compensating factors. It found that the appellate court had accepted the information supplied by the Greek authorities without sufficiently assessing whether those conditions complied with Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The judgment was therefore quashed and remitted for a new assessment of prison conditions, while the separate complaint concerning an alleged risk of discrimination connected with the requested person’s Kurdish ethnicity was dismissed.

The Italian courts ordered the surrender of the requested person to Romania under an European Arrest Warrant for the execution of a final sentence of nineteen years and four months’ imprisonment. The appellant argued that detention in Romania would expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment because of inadequate personal space and prison conditions and that his cardiac conditions created a concrete risk of serious deterioration of his health. The Supreme Court held that the Romanian authorities had provided sufficiently individualized information showing that the requested person would have at least three square metres of personal space, adequate structural and sanitary conditions, daily outdoor exercise and access to appropriate medical care, including prison hospitals and external healthcare facilities where necessary. The appeal was therefore dismissed, as the information obtained excluded a real risk contrary to Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter.

The case concerned a Romanian execution European Arrest Warrant issued for the enforcement of a two-year prison sentence for continued theft, committed and attempted. The requested person opposed surrender, arguing that Romanian detention conditions would expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment because the guaranteed personal space in semi-open detention would be three square metres including furniture, and that surrender should be postponed due to pending criminal proceedings in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that the assessment of detention conditions must be concrete and overall, taking into account not only the metric calculation of personal space but also compensatory factors such as the duration of the detention regime, freedom of movement outside the cell, access to activities and the general dignity of prison conditions. In the case at hand, the information supplied by the Romanian authorities identified the likely prison, the applicable detention regimes, a minimum space of three to four square metres, open cells, access to common areas and adequate hygiene, lighting, ventilation, heating and sanitary conditions; these elements were sufficient to exclude a real risk under Article 3 ECHR. The Court also held that postponement of surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005 is discretionary and cannot be challenged in cassation merely on grounds of reasoning where the requested person had not specifically sought postponement and the Court of Appeal had considered the absence of precautionary measures in the Italian proceedings.

Austria sought the requested person’s surrender under an execution EAW to enforce the remainder of a two-year custodial sentence for attempted aggravated bodily harm. The Italian Supreme Court held that the executing judicial authority must request individualised information from the issuing State only where objective, reliable, precise and current evidence indicates a serious risk of treatment contrary to Article 4 of the EU Charter or Article 3 ECHR. The material submitted by the defence concerned general staffing deficiencies and a police detention centre used for persons awaiting removal, rather than the prison in which the requested person would serve the sentence, while the latest CPT report did not identify general conditions amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment within the Austrian prison system. The Court therefore found that no further information from the Austrian authorities was required, declared the appeal inadmissible and upheld surrender.

The requested person challenged his surrender to Romania under a prosecutorial European Arrest Warrant for attempted murder, relying on prison conditions in Romania and his alleged stable integration in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court held that, following the 2021 reform, cassation review in EAW proceedings is limited to violations of law and does not extend to alleged contradictions or illogicality in the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. It found that the executing court had obtained individualised information concerning the destination prison and available cell space and had excluded a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment; the Supreme Court could not reassess the logical soundness of that evaluation. The complaint concerning stable integration likewise challenged the merits of the lower court’s assessment and was therefore inadmissible.

The requested person challenged his surrender to Romania for the execution of a final sentence for aggravated theft, arguing that the available personal space in the proposed detention cell would be below three square metres. The Italian Supreme Court held that fixed furnishings must be deducted when calculating usable cell space, but that a shortfall below the three-square-metre threshold does not automatically require refusal where adequate compensating factors are present. It found that detention in a semi-open regime, with confinement to the cell essentially limited to night-time and access to wider common areas and activities during the day, sufficiently offset the reduced cell space. The Court therefore concluded that the overall detention conditions did not expose the requested person to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and upheld surrender.

The requested person challenged his surrender to Romania for the execution of a four-year sentence for participation in a criminal organisation involved in drug trafficking, alleging a risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions. The Italian Supreme Court held that mutual trust between Member States may be rebutted only by reliable, specific and up-to-date material showing a real and individualised risk to the requested person. It found that the reports relied upon were either outdated or concerned categories of prisoners not relevant to the case, while no concrete personal circumstances capable of establishing such a risk had been alleged. The executing court was therefore not required to seek supplementary information from the Romanian authorities, and surrender was upheld.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for human trafficking, corresponding in Italy to offences relating to the induction and exploitation of prostitution. The requested person challenged the surrender order on three grounds: the alleged lack of reasoning in the domestic Romanian coercive measure, the alleged commission of the offence in Italy, and the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions due to his Roma ethnicity. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that, in a prosecution EAW, the issuing judicial authority is not required to state the reasons justifying the internal coercive measure, and the executing authority does not review the necessity of the requested person’s presence in the issuing State, except where the warrant is issued exclusively for investigative purposes. The Court also rejected the territoriality argument, recalling that refusal on that ground requires an objective indication that the Italian State is actually asserting jurisdiction, such as pending investigations for the same facts, which was not shown in the case. Finally, the Court found the detention-risk complaint generic: the defence had merely referred to a report concerning the situation of Roma persons in Romania, without demonstrating concrete and current systemic deficiencies capable of exposing the requested person to inhuman or degrading treatment. The surrender order was therefore upheld.

The case concerned an extradition request by Brazil for the prosecution of the requested person in relation to aggravated sexual violence against a minor allegedly committed in Brazil between 2011 and 2018. The requested person challenged the judgment granting extradition, arguing that the Court of Appeal had failed to assess the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in Brazil and should have requested information on the specific prison facility of destination, overcrowding, sanitary conditions and minimum living standards. The Italian Supreme Court held that the burden lies on the requested person to provide objective, precise, reliable and up-to-date evidence capable of raising a concrete risk of treatment incompatible with fundamental rights. General references to prison conditions, NGO reports or press articles were held insufficient, especially where the material relied upon did not contain specific and individualised information concerning the requested person’s likely detention. Since no concrete elements had been produced to undermine mutual trust between the States, the Court held that the Court of Appeal was not required to seek further information from the Brazilian authorities and dismissed the appeal.

The case concerned a Romanian national sought by Moldova to serve a three-year sentence for facilitating prostitution. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the challenges based on double criminality, alleged discrimination in the revocation of the suspended sentence and the foreseeability of the criminal conviction, holding that these issues either concerned the merits of the foreign judgment or did not disclose an extradition bar. It found, however, that although the information provided by the Moldovan authorities was sufficient as regards the general prison system, it did not adequately address the requested person’s individual risk of reprisals arising from abuses allegedly suffered and reported during a previous period of detention in the same prison. The Court therefore annulled the decision and remanded the case so that specific assurances could be obtained to exclude that concrete and personal risk.

If there is a current and concrete risk of a violation of the fundamental rights of the requested person, the extradition request must be refused. After reconstructing the procedural background and confirming that the formal requirements for extradition were met, the Court ruled out surrender on the ground that, if transferred to Turkey, the requested person would face a concrete risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In particular, the Court relied on the updated picture of systemic concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights in Turkey, with specific reference to detention conditions, the independence of the judiciary, the protection of fair trial rights, and the effectiveness of the guarantees arising under the ECHR. Referring to domestic and supranational case law, as well as several institutional and international sources, the Court held that any assurances provided by the requesting State were not sufficient, in the absence of objective, precise and up-to-date elements, to rule out the risk of violations of the requested person’s fundamental rights.

Moldova requested the extradition of the requested person for the execution of an eight-year custodial sentence for aggravated fraud. The Italian Supreme Court held that, where qualified sources indicate a general risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting State, the executing court must obtain complete, current and individualised information on the detention conditions that the person will face. It considered the information supplied by the Moldovan authorities sufficient because it identified the relevant prisons and described the material, sanitary, healthcare and personal-safety arrangements applicable to the requested person. The Court further clarified that the European Convention on Extradition requires the requesting State to produce an enforceable judgment of conviction, but does not require that judgment to be final or irrevocable, and therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld extradition.

The case concerned a United States request for extradition from Italy for prosecution on a charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The Court of Appeal had declared the conditions for extradition satisfied, subject to the condition that any extradition detention served in Italy be credited against a sentence eventually imposed in the United States. The requested person appealed, raising several objections, including alleged defects in the extradition request, the subsequent substitution of the extradition title following a Grand Jury indictment, lack of United States jurisdiction, insufficient evidentiary basis, breach of speciality, disproportionate punishment and the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions. The Italian Supreme Court rejected all grounds except the complaint concerning detention conditions. It held that the replacement or formal development of the extradition title during the proceedings did not bar extradition where the factual basis remained the same and the new title was submitted before the Court of Appeal’s decision. It also held that Italian courts are not required, in extradition to the United States, to review the existence of United States jurisdiction as a ground for refusal, and that the “reasonable basis” requirement under the Italy–US extradition treaty does not require an autonomous assessment of serious evidence of guilt. The Court further rejected the argument that the maximum penalty of twenty years for money laundering conspiracy was, in itself, manifestly disproportionate. However, it found that the Court of Appeal had failed to properly address the defence submissions on detention conditions. The defence had relied not only on NGO material but also on official United States prison standards suggesting that personal space could ordinarily fall below three square metres per detainee. This was a qualified source capable of raising a potential Article 3 ECHR issue. The Court therefore held that the Court of Appeal should have sought complete, current and individualized information from the United States on the specific detention conditions that would apply in case of surrender. The judgment was annulled with remand for a new assessment limited to that issue.

EAW and risk of inhuman treatment: if the lawyer of the sought person files reliable and specific sources concerning shortcomings in the current prison system of the requesting State (Romania), it becomes necessary to assess the individualised detention conditions and such an assessment cannot be excluded ab initio. Indeed, notwithstanding a trend of progressive improvement, international authorities continue to report widespread deficiencies in the Romanian penitentiary system.

In matters of extradition to a foreign State, a bar arises where there is a risk to the individual’s fundamental rights, particularly where the requesting State—no longer a member of the Council of Europe and involved in an armed conflict—cannot provide assurances that there is no current danger to the life or physical integrity of the person sought, in light of the widespread, severe and exceptional nature of the hostilities affecting its entire territory, where such a situation is objectively established, including as a matter of common knowledge. In the present case, moreover, since Poland—an EU Member State—has granted the requested person subsidiary protection, extradition to a third State could not, in any event, proceed without prior consultation with Poland. Poland has, in fact, already refused extradition to the Russian Federation on the basis of the same arrest warrant and for the same offences underlying the present proceedings; it is therefore reasonable to assume that such consultation would lead to a negative outcome.

EAW execution cannot lead to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court emphasized that when concrete risks of Article 3 ECHR violations exist, executing authorities must assess whether there is real danger of such treatment based on objective, reliable, precise and updated information. The Court noted that recent case law has recognized Romania's overcoming of structural prison system deficiencies through comprehensive initiatives and a 2020-2025 action plan, following the ECtHR pilot judgment in Rezmives v. Romania (2017). The Venice Court of Appeal had properly applied these principles by obtaining updated specific information from Romanian authorities about detention conditions. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, finding that Romanian authorities provided adequate individualized information about detention conditions in Bucharest-Rahova prison (3 sqm minimum individual space with compensatory factors) and Baia Mare prison (4 sqm in semi-open regime with extensive freedom of movement). The Court noted that Romania had addressed previous structural deficiencies through massive interventions following the Rezmives judgment, and that the 2025 People's Advocate report did not specifically relate to the prisons where the appellant would be detained.

The mere fact that a State is involved in an armed conflict does not automatically imply that detainees will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In any event, within extradition proceedings—during which the actual evolution of the armed conflict must be assessed on a case-by-case basis—it is always possible to request additional information from the requesting State, as well as any necessary assurances regarding the place of detention of the requested person and the respect of their fundamental rights.

As regards the detention conditions in Romania, the Romanian authorities submitted to the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe — which is responsible for supervising the execution of ECtHR judgments — the Action Plan for the five-year period 2020–2025. In that official document, the measures aimed at addressing the issues identified by the ECtHR were set out, through the introduction of administrative and legislative remedies, both preventive (reduction in the use of pre-trial detention, construction of new prison facilities, and upgrading of existing institutions) and compensatory (the possibility of obtaining sentence reductions in the event of detention in inadequate conditions). The Italian Supreme Court considered those measures capable of overcoming the structural shortcomings that had been identified, holding that, in light of the principle of mutual trust among Member States of the European Union, it must be presumed that detention conditions in Romania are not such as to give rise to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. That presumption may be rebutted — with the consequent obligation for the executing authority to seek further information — only where a specific and concrete risk of a violation of the requested person’s fundamental rights has been shown. The panel therefore ruled out the continued existence of a systemic deficiency in detention conditions in Romanian prisons and held that, where the defence relies on outdated information, it is lawful not to request further information from the issuing State.

Extradition requested in relation to two separate convictions, but transmitted by the Italian Minister of Justice with respect to only one of them (without mentioning the other). Stating — as argued by the Prosecutor – that this was merely a “clerical error in the transmission note” is debatable, as there is no certainty as to the position that the Minister of Justice intended to take with regard to the extradition request relating to the second judgment. The ministerial silence concerning the “second judgment”—especially when contrasted with the explicit stance taken on the “first judgment”—leaves room for both possible interpretations: on the one hand, the hypothesis of a material error; on the other hand, an implicit expression of intent not to proceed with the extradition request. Accordingly, interpreting such silence one way or the other is, from a logical standpoint, entirely open to dispute. It is also possible that the theory of a material error will ultimately prove to be correct in practice. But it is equally possible that the alternative explanation is the “true” one. Preferring one hypothesis over the other—by interpreting an equivocal element—risks encroaching upon a sphere that, as noted, falls within the prerogatives and responsibilities of the Minister.

In the context of the European Arrest Warrant, the judicial authority of the executing State may refuse to execute the request, even where the issuing State has provided assurances that the person concerned will not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, but only where, on the basis of precise elements, it nevertheless finds that there is a risk that the conditions of detention would be contrary to Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

If specific assurances are requested regarding detention conditions, generic information lacking any degree of individualisation cannot be regarded as sufficient, such individualisation being a necessary precondition also for assessing the concrete adequacy of any compensatory measures, which must be calibrated to the extent of the prejudice otherwise arising from overnight confinement in a cell. Accordingly, where a specific receiving prison has not been identified and, above all, where the size of the cells (to be assessed in relation to the number of detainees expected to remain therein, at least during night-time) has not been provided, further inquiries will be required.

The judicial authority cannot rely on generic assurances provided by the Hungarian authorities where such assurances are not capable of guaranteeing compliance with the principle that the specific custodial treatment to which the requested person will actually be subjected must be made known. The decision must instead be based on the acquisition of “individualised” information on the detention regime.

In extradition matters, the risk that the person sought may be subjected to acts of private revenge by individuals unconnected with institutional authorities and acting for personal motives does not constitute a ground for refusal under Article 705 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, as such contingencies can be prevented through the adoption of adequate protective measures by the requesting State.

Prison conditions in Moldova: where an alert situation exists, arising from the established presence of risk conditions, the necessary assessment by the Italian courts requires that specific assurances be obtained from the issuing State. Such assurances cannot be limited to general statements, but must be individualized in relation to the situation of the person concerned by the surrender proceedings. Moreover, the scrutiny of the guarantees regarding the treatment of the requested person must be all the more rigorous, considering that the offence for which the conviction was issued would not be classified as serious under our legal system.

In extradition proceedings, the acquisition of specific and individualised information is necessary where information—emanating from official sources—reveals structural deficiencies in the prison system of North Macedonia, and thus a risk that detained persons may be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court of Cassation considered, among the relevant assessment parameters, the findings of a report issued by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe, published in 2017, whose conclusions were substantially confirmed during a subsequent visit by the same Committee in 2019. With specific reference to the present case, it should be noted that the existence of information from official sources regarding structural shortcomings in the North Macedonian penitentiary system is even more up to date, as evidenced by a report of the Council of Europe’s Committee against Torture dated June 2024, which—broadly speaking—highlighted that, compared to previous CPT inspections in 2016 and 2019, no improvements have been made in the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty.

Court of Appeal correctly pointed out that the defence submissions referred to a situation of significant political instability in Peru, but did not in any way substantiate — on the basis of reports issued by reliable organisations — the alleged serious problems of prison overcrowding. In the substantial absence of elements capable of raising doubts as to the risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, it must be excluded that the Court of Appeal is under an obligation to nonetheless request further information, as this would amount to a merely exploratory activity, not justified by proven elements capable of undermining the principle of mutual trust between States. This principle is grounded in the treaty-based nature of extradition agreements, which are founded on a relationship of mutual confidence and reliance between States. Accordingly, the domestic judicial authority is required to seek additional information only where that presumption of reliability is called into question on the basis of concrete elements, which may also be derived from open sources, provided they are deemed reliable. Therefore, in the absence of any element capable of giving rise to suspicion that the conditions of detention would not comply with human rights standards, no general duty to request further information or assurances can be invoked, as this would undermine the very principle of mutual trust underpinning extradition treaties. Moreover, in the case law of this Court, there are no recent precedents establishing that detention conditions in Peru are incompatible with the protection of human rights.

The progress made by Albania, particularly in the area of the rule of law and fundamental freedoms, led the European Council to formally open accession negotiations with the European Union on 19 July 2022. Furthermore, with specific reference to prison conditions, on 23 November 2021 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of the Council of Europe conducted a visit to Albania, at the conclusion of which it did not report any instances of inhuman or degrading treatment.

The extremely severe situation of the ongoing armed conflict, which is now spreading to areas previously unaffected by attacks by the Russian Federation and whose developments are, at present, unpredictable, constitutes a ground precluding extradition, as it is not possible to provide an effective guarantee as to the absence of a current risk to the safety of the person to be extradited. The exceptional nature of the current situation of the armed conflict in Ukraine constitutes a “matter of common knowledge,” acquired within the collective awareness to such a degree of certainty as to appear indisputable.

In the context of the execution of a European Arrest Warrant, the failure of the issuing State to answer to the Court of Appeal’s request for consent to the enforcement of the sentence in Italian territory must be regarded as a refusal, since the non-transmission of the judgment and the certificate constitutes implicit confirmation of the request for surrender already made through the issuance of the warrant.

In matters of extradition for prosecution to a foreign State, the Italian judicial authority, when assessing the existence of serious indications of guilt as required under Article 705(1) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure in the absence of an extradition treaty with the requesting State, may not apply the “simplified” evidentiary regime set out in Article 16 of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded on 15 November 2000 and implemented by Law No. 146 of 16 March 2006, since that Convention does not have the legal nature of an extradition treaty.

The Court of Appeal must assess, including by requesting supplementary information, the circumstances alleged by the person concerned regarding the risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, obtaining “individualised” information on the detention regime that will be applied to the extraditee and evaluating, in addition to the general conditions existing in the prisons of the requesting State, also in light of his or her age and state of health, whether necessary by seeking assurances that the person concerned will be able to continue receiving treatment within the penitentiary facilities of the requesting State. Moreover, in several rulings, the Supreme Court has excluded the risk of persons extradited to Moldova being subjected to degrading treatment, precisely by relying on the reliability of the information provided by the Moldovan institutional authorities.

The requested person challenged his extradition from Italy to the United States for conspiracy, computer fraud and money laundering, principally alleging a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment at the Essex County Correctional Facility. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had adequately investigated the individual risk through three requests for supplementary information and could rely on the official assurances supplied by the requesting State. The existence of organisational deficiencies or isolated incidents of violence did not establish a concrete risk of systemic violations of fundamental rights. The Court also found that converting criminal proceeds into bitcoin could satisfy double criminality by corresponding to the Italian offence of self-laundering. The further complaints concerning speciality, proportionality of punishment, credit for time spent under house arrest and the right to a fair trial were rejected as hypothetical or unfounded. Extradition was therefore upheld.

In matters of extradition to a foreign State, when assessing the existence of grounds precluding the issuance of a decision in favor of surrender - which, pursuant to Article 714(3) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, also bar the adoption of coercive measures aimed at securing its execution - the Court of Appeal is required to determine whether, on the basis of objective and reliable elements, there is a risk that the person sought will be subjected, in the requesting State, to inhuman or degrading treatment (also considering the impact of Russia - Ukraine war).

Under the Italy–Brazil Extradition Treaty, the validation of a provisional arrest and the imposition of coercive measures do not require a formal extradition request at the initial stage. Pursuant to Article 13(4), such measures lapse only if the extradition request and supporting documents are not received within forty days from the notification of the arrest. Accordingly, a mere preliminary request is sufficient at the validation stage, provided that the complete extradition request is submitted within the prescribed time limit.

Where the information concerning the nature of the European Arrest Warrant and the detention regime is insufficient, the judicial authority is required to seek further details from the judicial and prison authorities of the issuing State. Should the information provided prove to be lacking or inadequate, the warrant may be deemed unsuitable, potentially leading to a reassessment of the surrender request.

The imposition of an obligation to perform work is not, in principle, prohibited under human rights conventions. However, the Court is required to ascertain whether the penalty provided for by the legislation of the requesting State amounts, in substance—irrespective of its formal designation—to treatment that violates the individual’s fundamental rights. Accordingly, in matters concerning forced labour and “work normally required of a detained person,” it is necessary to examine the consequences of any failure to comply with the obligation to provide compensation, whether the conviction expressly provides for forced labour and, if so, the nature and modalities of such labour, in order to determine whether it falls within the scope of “work normally required of a detained person.”

In matters of extradition to a foreign State, a bar to surrender based on the risk to the individual’s fundamental rights arises where the requesting State, being involved in an armed conflict, is unable to provide adequate assurances as to the absence of a current risk to the safety of the requested person, due to the widespread, intense and exceptional nature of military attacks affecting its entire territory, where such a situation is objectively established, including as a matter of common knowledge.

In matters of extradition to a foreign State, where the request for surrender is made by the third country of origin of a person to whom another Member State of the European Union has granted temporary protection pursuant to Directive 2001/55/EC, the requested Italian judicial authority must initiate prior consultations with the State that granted such protection, in order to ascertain whether it precludes the execution of the extradition or whether the authority that granted it intends to revoke it pursuant to Article 28 of that Directive. In this context, the principles laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 18 June 2024, Case C-352/22, concerning persons granted refugee status under Directive 2011/95/EU, shall apply. (Case concerning an extradition request submitted by Ukraine against one of its nationals, to whom the Portuguese authorities had granted temporary protection, pursuant to Directive 2001/55/EC and Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 of 4 March 2022, for persons fleeing the ongoing war in that country).

Where the defence specifically raises the existence of a concrete risk of inhuman or degrading treatment arising from the prison regime to which the requested person would be subjected, such assessment must be carried out by requesting from the issuing State all information concerning the specific detention conditions envisaged for that individual. Accordingly, where the information provided by the requesting State is inadequate or unclear—particularly with regard to issues such as prison overcrowding or the characteristics of the cells—a further request for supplementary information must be made.

The Court of Appeal must carry out a specific assessment where the requested person, on the basis of objective, reliable, precise and properly updated elements, alleges a serious risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the issuing State. Once the existence of a general and current risk of inhuman treatment in the Member State has been established on the basis of reliable sources, it is necessary to verify whether, in the конкрет case, the person subject to the European Arrest Warrant would actually be exposed to such treatment. Accordingly, a targeted inquiry must be conducted in order to ascertain—through “individualised” information to be requested from the issuing State—the specific detention conditions to which the requested person will be subjected, with particular regard to those aspects identified by reliable sources as critical and capable of giving rise to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

In matters of the European Arrest Warrant, where the issuing State provides assurances that the arrested person will not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, the executing State may refuse surrender only if there exists a concrete risk of detention conditions contrary to Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The assessment of detention conditions must be overall and comprehensive, and must therefore take into account a range of factors, including whether there are elements capable of offsetting any shortcomings in relation to conventional standards.

Extradition is permissible only if the request is accompanied by the judicial decision constituting the legal basis of the request; therefore, regardless of the procedural stage that gave rise to it, the continuation of a precautionary measure beyond 40 days is never allowed in the absence of the documents required under Article 700 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 12(2) of the European Extradition Convention, in particular the foreign judicial order imposing the custodial measure.

Hungary sought the requested person’s surrender under an execution EAW to enforce a final two-year custodial sentence for drug offences. The Italian Supreme Court held that, where accredited international sources disclose structural prison deficiencies, the executing judicial authority must request individualised information identifying the prison in which the requested person will be detained and the concrete conditions prevailing there. The general absence of an EU or national suspension of EAW cooperation with Hungary was not sufficient to dispense with that assessment, particularly in light of the 2023 CPT findings concerning overcrowding and degrading detention conditions. The Court therefore quashed the surrender decision and remitted the case for further inquiries, while holding that residence and family ties in Austria, rather than in the executing State, did not constitute a ground for refusal and that any transfer of sentence enforcement must follow the separate prisoner-transfer procedure.

With reference to extradition requests submitted by Turkey, in light of the situation—ascertained by various international institutions—of systematic violations by that State of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of detainees, particularly those belonging to the Kurdish ethnic group or to opposition parties, which persist notwithstanding the lifting of the suspension of the application of the European Convention on Human Rights adopted in that State following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016, it is necessary for the judicial authority to obtain unequivocal elements in order to verify, in concreto, that the person sought does not face a risk of being subjected, within Turkish detention facilities, to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Risk of inhuman or degrading treatment: where the objections raised are generic and unsupported by evidence capable of substantiating them—being limited to a mere reference to a report following a visit by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, without any connection to the specific circumstances of the case—no obstacles arise to the granting of extradition.

Where, under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the need to secure the physical presence of the requested person in criminal proceedings appears, in abstract terms, compatible with the objectives of the cooperation instrument, this does not exempt the judicial authority of the executing State from carrying out the substantive assessments entrusted to it, namely compliance with the principle of proportionality. It is therefore necessary to assess the impact of surrender on the person’s family life, on the relationship with minor children and on their needs for care and protection, especially where the person is the sole parent of two very young children and there exists, in abstract terms, the possibility of securing the person’s presence by means of a video-link (excluded by the UK court not because such a tool is unavailable or prohibited under domestic law, but on discretionary grounds of expediency).

Once the existence of a current, general risk of inhuman treatment in the issuing Member State has been established on the basis of reliable sources, it must then be assessed whether, in the specific case, the person subject to the European Arrest Warrant would be exposed to such treatment. Accordingly, a targeted assessment must be carried out to determine—through “individualised” information to be requested from the issuing State—the concrete conditions of detention to which the requested person will be subjected, with particular regard to those aspects identified by reliable sources as critical and capable of giving rise to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Where the content of such information excludes that risk, the Court of Appeal must, in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition, simply take note of it and proceed with the surrender, without requiring any additional guarantees regarding detention conditions. Conversely, where the risk is not excluded and the Court of Appeal must refuse surrender, the decision on surrender is to be regarded as issued “on the basis of the state of the file”, so that it may be reassessed if and when the obstacle to surrender ceases to exist.

In the context of a European Arrest Warrant, a surrender decision is lawful even where no Italian translation of the judgment underlying the request has been provided. Moreover, where the European Arrest Warrant expressly states that the requested person has the right to seek a retrial in the issuing State and that, following surrender, he will be expressly informed of that right, the condition required for surrender pursuant to a so-called “executive” warrant must be considered satisfied.

The case concerned a request by Peru for the extradition of a Peruvian national accused of drug trafficking for allegedly attempting to export cocaine to the United States. The requested person challenged the extradition decision arguing that the general human rights situation in Peru, including prison overcrowding, poor detention conditions, corruption within institutions, and concerns regarding judicial independence, exposed her to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation held that the Court of Appeal had failed to adequately address the detailed submissions and international reports produced by the defence, including reports from Amnesty International and the Italian Embassy. The Court reiterated that, even in the presence of a bilateral extradition treaty, Italian courts must conduct a concrete assessment of detention conditions in the requesting State and, where necessary, seek additional information. The extradition decision was therefore annulled and remanded for a new assessment.

European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and risk of inhuman or degrading treatment: the assessment carried out by the Court of Appeal cannot be based on generic assurances of compliance with legal provisions and absence of risk, as expressed in the communication sent by the Latvian authorities. While, as a general rule, reliance must be placed on assurances provided by the issuing Member State, it remains possible, in certain circumstances, to establish the existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to the guarantees set out in Article 4 of the Charter, particularly in relation to detention conditions.