🇮🇹 Italy →

The requested person challenged an Italian appellate judgment authorising surrender to Bulgaria under a European Arrest Warrant issued for the enforcement of a sentence relating to bodily injury. The appeal relied, first, on the requested person’s alleged family and social integration in Italy and, second, on the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in Bulgaria. The Court held that the five-year period of lawful and continuous residence or stay required by Italian law is a mandatory prerequisite for the optional ground for refusal based on residence, and that the presence of minor children does not by itself preclude surrender where another parent is able to care for them. It further held that the Aranyosi and Căldăraru mechanism is triggered only where the defence produces objective, reliable, specific and duly updated material demonstrating a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment; generic references to prison overcrowding and an outdated CPT statement were insufficient. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible and the surrender decision remained in force.

The requested person challenged an Italian appellate decision ordering surrender to Malta under a European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution in connection with drug-trafficking offences and breach of bail conditions. The Court held that an EAW issued for prosecution does not require the executing judicial authority to conduct a prior full review of the underlying national coercive order, but found that the Maltese offence of breach of bail conditions lacked a corresponding offence under Italian law and therefore failed the double criminality requirement. It further held that, although stable residence in Italy is not a ground for refusing a prosecution EAW, where the requested person is stably integrated in Italy the surrender must be made conditional upon their return to Italy to serve any custodial sentence or measure ultimately imposed. The judgment was therefore quashed without remand as regards surrender for the bail offence and as regards the omitted return condition, while the remainder of the appeal was dismissed.

The requested person, who was sixteen years old at the time of the alleged offence, challenged an Italian decision ordering surrender to Germany under a prosecution European Arrest Warrant. The Court held that, following the 2021 reform of Italian EAW legislation, the former mandatory refusal ground concerning the existence of a differentiated punitive and detention regime for minors no longer applies, and that protection of minors in EU Member States is presumed in light of EU law unless the defence produces concrete, specific and updated evidence to the contrary. It further held that the EAW need not specify the minimum applicable sentence, the precise detention facility, the duration of pre-trial detention or other details of the foreign custodial regime where those omissions do not affect the statutory requirements for surrender. The appeal was declared inadmissible, while the surrender remained subject to the condition that any custodial sentence ultimately imposed be served in Italy.

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 Italian Court of Appeal ordered the surrender of the requested person to Germany pursuant to a prosecution European Arrest Warrant concerning aggravated theft offences. The appellant argued, inter alia, that the pending challenge against the rejection of his application for international protection triggered the principle of non-refoulement, that his social and occupational ties in Italy justified execution of any future sentence in Italy, and that double criminality had not been adequately established. The Supreme Court held that non-refoulement protection based on refugee status did not prevent surrender because refugee status and subsidiary protection had both been expressly denied, notwithstanding the fact that the refusal was under appeal; it also found that the five-year residence requirement under Italian EAW law was not met. The Court further reiterated that double criminality does not require identical criminal offences in the two legal systems, but only that the conduct be punishable in both, and declared the appeal inadmissible.

The Italian courts ordered the surrender of the requested person to Spain under a prosecution European Arrest Warrant, subject to their return to Italy to serve any sentence or security measure eventually imposed, while criminal proceedings were also pending against them in Italy. The appellant challenged the refusal to defer surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005, arguing that the courts should have weighed the respective procedural interests of Italy and Spain and considered a temporary transfer. The Supreme Court of Cassation held that the decision whether to defer surrender involves exclusively the balancing of competing public interests of the two States and does not confer an enforceable subjective right on the requested person. Following the 2021 reform limiting EAW appeals before the Court of Cassation to questions of law, the appellant could not seek review of the Court of Appeal’s discretionary refusal to postpone surrender, and the appeal was therefore declared inadmissible.

The requested person challenged an Italian appellate judgment ordering surrender to Spain for prosecution in connection with an aggravated robbery allegedly committed in Ibiza. He argued that the European Arrest Warrant lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis, that flight risk was absent, and that personal and family medical circumstances should prevent surrender. The Supreme Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that, following the 2021 reform of Italian EAW legislation, the warrant is no longer required to set out serious indications of guilt or include a separate account of the evidentiary sources, provided that it adequately describes the circumstances of the offence and the requested person’s degree of participation. The Court further held that the executing judicial authority may not reassess the precautionary requirements underlying the warrant, while health-related concerns ordinarily pertain to the execution phase rather than constituting grounds for refusal.

The requested person challenged his surrender from Italy to Poland for the execution of a sentence concerning tax fraud and accounting offences, arguing that France had previously refused surrender on nationality grounds and had agreed to recognise and enforce the same Polish judgment. The Supreme Court held that the refusal by the French authorities did not preclude execution of the Polish EAW because there was no evidence that Poland had transmitted the judgment and the certificate required by Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA or that enforcement had actually begun in France. A French summons concerning a hearing on possible alternatives to detention could not be treated either as a valid EAW or as a formal request for surrender. Since Poland had confirmed that the EAW remained valid, while remaining willing to consider enforcement of the sentence in France, the appeal was dismissed and surrender to Poland was upheld.

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.

Poland sought the surrender of a person for the execution of an eight-month custodial sentence imposed for failing to maintain a minor child. The requested person argued that the proceedings had been conducted in absentia and that, owing to his long-term residence and social integration in Italy, the Italian courts should refuse surrender and enforce the sentence domestically. The Court of Cassation held that objections concerning lack of knowledge of the foreign proceedings, raised for the first time on appeal and requiring factual findings, were inadmissible. It further held that refusal under Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA requires the issuing State’s consent to transmission and execution of the sentence under Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA; the absence of a positive response from Poland amounted to implicit confirmation that the sentence should be executed in the issuing State, so the appeal was dismissed and surrender confirmed.

Romania sought the surrender of the requested person for the execution of a final sentence of one year and ten months’ imprisonment for unlawful entry into a dwelling, aggravated criminal damage, and driving under the influence of alcohol and psychotropic substances. The Court of Cassation held that the optional ground for refusal based on residence and social integration did not apply because continuous residence in Italy for at least five years had not been established. It further held that double criminality concerns only whether the conduct constitutes an offence in both legal systems, and is unaffected by the fact that prosecution in Italy would require a complaint by the victim. The possible expiry of the limitation period under Italian law was likewise irrelevant, since limitation is no longer a ground for refusing surrender and, in any event, Italy had no jurisdiction over the offence committed in Romania.

The Italian Court of Appeal ordered the surrender of a person sought by Greece under a European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution in connection with aggravated theft and participation in a criminal organisation. The requested person challenged the adequacy of the factual information in the EAW, the failure to seek supplementary information, the continuing validity of the underlying arrest warrant and the failure to recognise his family and professional integration in Italy. The Supreme Court held that the EAW contained the minimum information required to identify the alleged conduct and that supplementary information may be requested only where necessary to decide on surrender, not for exploratory purposes or to reassess the evidential basis of the accusation. It also held that the requested person had failed to prove the stable and continuous five-year residence required for the safeguard applicable to prosecution EAWs, and declared the appeal inadmissible.

France sought the requested person’s surrender under an execution EAW to enforce a one-year custodial sentence imposed for several theft offences committed in 2021. The appellant argued that the warrant did not sufficiently describe his degree of participation and that he had previously spent eight months in pre-trial detention in France for the same conduct. The Italian Supreme Court held that, before surrender, the EAW need only contain information on the nature and legal classification of the offence, the circumstances, time and place of its commission, and the requested person’s role; the reference to the “degree of participation” does not require a detailed assessment of the intensity of the person’s involvement. It also rejected the previous-detention argument because the appellant had not identified the relevant facts and the full one-year sentence remained to be served, and therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld surrender.

The European Convention on Extradition does not empower the judicial authority of the requested State to review whether the judgment underlying the extradition request is enforceable, once that judgment has been classified as enforceable by the requesting State. Moreover, under the system established by the European Convention on Extradition, the judicial authority of the requested State is not entitled to review the reasoning of the conviction judgment. Accordingly, the conditions for extradition may be found to be satisfied even where the statement of reasons has not been transmitted, unless the person sought alleges that the foreign proceedings involved a violation of fundamental rights or that the judgment contains provisions contrary to the fundamental principles of the Italian legal order.

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 an Italian appellate judgment declaring the conditions for extradition to Albania satisfied solely in respect of a drug-trafficking offence allegedly committed in Italy. He argued that surrender for the predicate offence would breach the principle of speciality because extradition had been refused for the related criminal-association charge, that the evidentiary basis was insufficient, that territorial commission gave priority to Italian jurisdiction, and that detention conditions in Albania created a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, holding that the speciality rule prevents prosecution for offences for which extradition was not granted, while the commission in Italy of part of the requested offence does not exclude concurrent foreign jurisdiction. Under Article 7 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, territoriality constitutes only an optional ground for refusal, whose application falls within the exclusive competence of the Minister of Justice, and the detention complaint was contradicted by official assurances from the requesting State.

The requested person argued that surrender to Spain should be refused because the European Arrest Warrant did not indicate the maximum duration of pre-trial detention under Spanish law. The Italian Supreme Court held that the former statutory ground for refusal based on the absence of maximum pre-trial detention limits was repealed in 2021, in line with the presumption that EU Member States respect fundamental rights and provide either time limits or periodic judicial review of continued detention. It clarified, however, that detention exceeding a reasonable time may still constitute a bar to surrender under the general protection of fundamental rights. The requested person must therefore provide specific and plausible material showing the absence of adequate limits or equivalent safeguards; in the present case, no such evidence was submitted.

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.

Switzerland requested the extradition of the requested person for the enforcement of a final custodial sentence concerning drug-related offences and the unauthorised sale of medicinal products. The Italian courts had granted extradition only for drug trafficking and unauthorised pharmaceutical sales, while refusing it for possession of drugs for personal use because that conduct is subject only to an administrative sanction under Italian law and therefore fails the double criminality requirement. On appeal, the requested person incorrectly argued that extradition had also been granted for personal drug use. The Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that the refusal concerning that offence had already become final and that the extradition order was limited to the offences for which double criminality was satisfied.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by Spain in relation to a robbery charge. The requested person appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Naples granting surrender, arguing that the warrant did not indicate the evidentiary sources on which he had been identified as one of the perpetrators and that the executing court should have assessed whether the EAW was supported by serious indications of guilt. The Italian Supreme Court held that, following the reform introduced by Legislative Decree No. 10/2021, the executing judicial authority is no longer required to assess the seriousness of the evidence or the sources of proof, but only to verify that the description of the facts is sufficiently capable of identifying a criminal offence attributable to the requested person. The Court also declared inadmissible the additional ground concerning the alleged absence of the original Spanish version of the EAW, holding that new grounds cannot be introduced before the Court of Cassation in EAW proceedings and noting that the arrest was based on the SIS alert and that the Italian translation of the EAW had been transmitted. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the French judicial authority for drug-related offences, money laundering and participation in a criminal association. The Court of Appeal of Venice ordered surrender and the requested person appealed to the Italian Supreme Court. He argued that the EAW lacked the information required under Italian law, that the evidence relied on by the French authorities was unusable because it derived from SKY ECC communications, that surrender should be refused because part of the alleged conduct had occurred in Italy, and that he was entitled to the return guarantee due to his long-standing ties with Italy. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that the EAW sufficiently identified the underlying national arrest warrant, the investigative material, the requested person’s alleged role, the relevant conduct and the applicable penalty; no supplementary information was therefore required. It also held that, after the 2021 reform of the Italian EAW legislation, the absence of serious indications of guilt is no longer a ground for refusing surrender, and that any procedural objections to the acquisition of evidence by the issuing authority must be raised before the French courts. As to territoriality and pending Italian proceedings, the Court held that refusal requires the actual and prior exercise of Italian jurisdiction over the same facts, not merely an abstract possibility or investigative interest. Finally, the Court rejected the return-guarantee argument. For a prosecution EAW, mere factual presence or long-term stay in Italy is insufficient: what matters is residence capable of supporting social reintegration. The Court found that the requested person did not show such residence and that the Court of Appeal had reasonably relied on his lack of lawful employment in Italy and on the commission of profit-driven offences in Italy. Surrender to France was therefore upheld.

The requested person challenged his surrender to Malta under a prosecutorial European Arrest Warrant issued in connection with tax offences, false accounting and money laundering. The Italian Supreme Court held that the executing judicial authority is not required to assess whether surrender is necessary or proportionate where the warrant is based on a coercive measure intended to secure the person’s presence for prosecution, and that the availability of less intrusive investigative tools does not affect the validity of the warrant. It further held that money laundering is one of the listed offences for which surrender may be ordered without verification of double criminality, provided that the conduct is classified as such under the law of the issuing State. Finally, the Court ruled that alleged inconsistencies in the amount of tax evaded and challenges to the evidentiary basis of the accusation concern the merits and must be raised before the courts of the issuing State.

The requested person challenged his surrender to Spain under a prosecutorial European Arrest Warrant concerning alleged participation in an organised group carrying out robberies of luxury watches. The Italian Supreme Court held that, following the 2021 reform of Law No. 69/2005, the absence of an indication of serious evidence of guilt or of the evidentiary sources supporting the accusation does not constitute a ground for refusing surrender. It clarified that the warrant need only contain the minimum formal information necessary for the executing authority to perform the checks assigned to it, including the nature and legal classification of the offences, the time and place of their commission, and the requested person’s alleged degree of participation. The executing court may not request the underlying precautionary order in order to reassess the evidentiary basis, and any failure by the issuing State to provide such information cannot justify refusal of surrender.

The requested person was subject to two prosecutorial European Arrest Warrants issued by Germany and Austria for organised aggravated thefts, while criminal proceedings and the execution of a residual sentence were pending in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court held that the decision whether to defer surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005 requires a comparative assessment of the interests involved, taking into account factors such as the seriousness and date of the offences, the person’s custodial status, the stage and complexity of the proceedings, any final judgment, the sentence still to be served and the likely manner of its execution. It found that the Court of Appeal had adequately explained why the seriousness, organised nature and transnational dimension of the offences underlying the German and Austrian warrants outweighed the Italian interest in the domestic proceedings and sentence enforcement. The fact that the requested person was detained in Italy did not make deferral necessary, since flight risk is addressed through precautionary measures whereas the purpose of a prosecutorial EAW is to secure the person’s presence for trial.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the German judicial authority for burglary committed inside a private dwelling. The Court of Appeal of Perugia ordered surrender and the requested person appealed to the Italian Supreme Court. He argued, first, that the maximum time limits for precautionary measures under Article 22-bis of Law No. 69/2005 had expired, because the relevant period should have been calculated from the date of arrest. Secondly, he argued that the Court of Appeal should have requested supplementary information on the evidentiary basis of the warrant, in order to verify the legal classification of the facts and the double criminality requirement. The Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. As to the time-limit argument, it held that the judgment under appeal concerned the conditions for surrender, not the requested person’s liberty status. In any event, the expiry of precautionary-measure time limits, or the delivery of the surrender decision after the statutory time limits, does not affect the validity of the surrender decision itself. As to the evidentiary argument, the Court recalled that, following Legislative Decree No. 10/2021, the absence of serious indications of guilt is no longer a ground for refusing surrender under the Italian EAW legislation. Effective judicial protection before surrender is ensured by access to the information contained in the EAW, including the nature and legal classification of the offence, the circumstances, time and place of commission, and the requested person’s degree of participation. Since the requested person did not allege that the EAW lacked such information, any challenge to the evidentiary basis or legal classification of the offence had to be raised before the judicial authority of the issuing State. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible and the surrender decision remained in force

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 a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Portuguese judicial authority for offences including criminal association, money laundering, aggravated fraud, computer-related falsification and aggravated document falsification. The Court of Appeal of Catanzaro ordered surrender. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that his alleged residence in Italy should have been assessed for the purposes of refusal or future execution of any sentence in Italy, that the EAW lacked sufficient factual detail and guarantees in case of trial in absentia, and that the Court had failed to examine Portuguese detention conditions. The Italian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that, although Article 19 of Law No. 69/2005 provides for a return guarantee in prosecution EAWs, the Court of Appeal had adequately found that the requested person was neither an Italian citizen nor a person lawfully and effectively resident in Italy for at least five continuous years. Mere family ties, lack of criminal record, attempts to regularize stay, or possible employment in Italy were insufficient to establish genuine integration. The Court also held that the EAW contained an adequate description of the alleged conduct and the requested person’s participation in a criminal group operating since 2023. Finally, the objection concerning Portuguese detention conditions was rejected as generic and exploratory, since no concrete, specific or updated sources had been produced to show a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The surrender order was therefore upheld.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court of Łódź-Śródmieście for participation in a criminal organisation, fraud, theft and impersonation of a public official. The Court of Appeal of Turin ordered surrender. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that the EAW did not sufficiently describe his role, the specific contribution allegedly made to the offences, and the dates of commission of some of the alleged crimes. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that, following the 2021 reform of Law No. 69/2005, the EAW must contain the elements necessary for the executing judicial authority to carry out its review, but it is no longer necessary to attach evidence or a detailed statement of the sources of proof. In this case, the warrant sufficiently described the requested person’s alleged participation in an organised criminal group involved in frauds against elderly persons, including the methods used, the purpose of money transfers and the role of the participants. The Court also held that the indication of a time frame for the offences is sufficient where the facts can be placed chronologically and their essential features are clear. The alleged lack of precise dates did not affect the right of defence. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court of Munich, at the request of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in Munich, for the prosecution of offences relating to an alleged transnational VAT fraud scheme involving missing trader companies. The Court of Appeal of Milan ordered surrender, subject to the condition that, in the event of conviction, the requested person be returned to Italy to serve any custodial sentence. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that surrender should have been refused because an EPPO proceeding concerning the same facts was already pending before the Naples office, creating a risk of parallel proceedings and ne bis in idem. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that the optional territoriality refusal ground requires a current and concrete conflict of jurisdiction, not merely a potential overlap. In any event, where the EAW is issued within EPPO proceedings, coordination issues between delegated European prosecutors operating in different Member States must be resolved within the EPPO framework and do not fall to the Italian executing court. The Italian court must only verify that the EAW comes from a judicial authority of another Member State and satisfies the statutory requirements. In the present case, the Naples EPPO office had clarified that its investigation concerned only the year 2016 and was at an initial stage, while the German EAW covered a broader factual context from January 2016 to July 2024, involving more transactions and companies. Any possible overlap was therefore limited and insufficient to justify refusal, especially since the Italian authority had not expressed an intention to exercise its punitive power over the facts covered by the EAW. The Court also rejected the objection that the EAW was too generic, holding that it adequately described the associative context, the requested person’s role, the timeframe, the applicable offences and penalties. The appeal was dismissed and the surrender order upheld.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for the execution of a sentence of two years, eleven months and fifteen days’ imprisonment imposed by the Motru Tribunal for offences including assault and bodily injury. The Court of Appeal of Palermo ordered surrender. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that the information provided by Romania did not sufficiently identify the prison where the sentence would actually be served, did not clarify whether the minimum personal space excluded furniture, and did not properly address the conditions in Rahova prison, where he would initially be placed. He also argued that the Court of Appeal had failed to assess his integration in Italy for the purposes of the optional refusal ground based on social rehabilitation. The Italian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. As to detention conditions, it held that the Romanian authorities had provided specific and adequate information. The requested person would spend only two and a half days in quarantine at Bucharest-Rahova, where the three square metres of personal space did not include the bed and furniture. Although Targu Jiu was indicated as the “very probable” place of execution, the Court considered that the semi-open or open regime, the possibility of spending substantial time outside the cell, and access to work, educational, cultural, therapeutic and rehabilitative activities were relevant compensatory factors. The Court also referred to recent case law finding that Romania had overcome earlier structural deficiencies in its prison system following reforms adopted after the ECtHR pilot judgment in Rezmiveș and Others. As to social rehabilitation, the Court held that the defence had failed to provide specific allegations or evidence showing lawful and effective residence or stay in Italy for at least five years, as required by Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005. The mere assertion of the refusal ground could not trigger an exploratory assessment by the court. The surrender order was therefore upheld.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Tribunal of Constanza for fraud, based on a Romanian pre-trial detention warrant. The requested person challenged surrender, relying on his alleged long-term residence and work activity in Italy, the alleged uncertainty surrounding the continued validity of the Romanian precautionary title, and the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in Romania. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that residence and social rehabilitation are irrelevant in relation to a prosecution EAW, since Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005 applies only to EAWs issued for the execution of a custodial sentence or security measure. The Court also found that the Romanian authorities had expressly confirmed both the continuing interest in surrender and the validity of the pre-trial detention warrant. Finally, as to detention conditions, the Court held that no systemic risk currently justified derogation from mutual trust in respect of Romania and that, in any event, the Romanian authorities had provided specific and individualized information on the detention path of the requested person, including pre-trial detention in Constanza and possible sentence execution in Slobozia. The surrender order was therefore upheld.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Hamburg District Court for attempted aggravated theft in conspiracy. The requested person challenged surrender, arguing that the EAW did not contain sufficient identifying information and that the German authorities should have used less intrusive instruments, such as a European Investigation Order, if the real purpose was investigative. The Italian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that, after the 2021 reform of Law No. 69/2005, the EAW must indicate the identity and nationality of the requested person, but further identification data, fingerprints or DNA are not required unless there is a concrete doubt as to identity. In this case, the correspondence of personal details was sufficient and no real doubt emerged. As to the purpose of the warrant, the Court held that a prosecution EAW is legitimate where the person is sought for pending criminal proceedings, including appearance before the judicial authority or trial. It is not for the executing State to review the issuing authority’s assessment of the need for the person’s presence. An EIO may be used for evidence-gathering purposes, but it cannot replace an EAW where the requested person must be transferred for criminal proceedings rather than merely heard for evidentiary purposes. Since there was no indication that the warrant had exclusively investigative aims detached from prosecution, surrender was upheld.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Cypriot judicial authorities for prosecution in relation to offences including armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery and attempted burglary. The Court of Appeal ordered surrender, finding that the EAW contained the information required by Italian law, that the facts were also offences under Italian law, and that no mandatory or optional grounds for refusal applied. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that surrender should have been postponed under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005 because he had to serve a sentence in Italy for a different offence, and that surrender should in any event have been made subject to a return guarantee under Article 19(2), given his family ties in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that postponement of surrender under Article 24 is discretionary: the Court of Appeal had reasonably declined to postpone surrender because the Cypriot request concerned serious offences, including aggravated robbery and criminal association, whereas the Italian sentence concerned a less serious aggravated theft conviction. The Court also held that temporary transfer to Italy under Article 24(2) requires a request from the issuing judicial authority, which was absent. As to the return guarantee, the Court found that the requested person’s family presence in Italy was insufficient to establish genuine and stable integration, especially given that he had not regularized his stay, had no lawful employment or residence permit, retained Serbian citizenship and property in Serbia, and had criminal records relevant to the offences prosecuted in Cyprus. The surrender order was therefore upheld.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Austrian judicial authorities for the prosecution of a Montenegrin national accused of murder and attempted murder allegedly committed in Vienna. The Court of Appeal of Bologna ordered surrender. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that the EAW had an improperly investigative purpose and that Austria should instead have used a European Investigation Order; that the Italian court should have verified the existence of a previous extradition request from Montenegro and a Red Notice; that the EAW lacked adequate guarantees in relation to a possible life sentence; that surrender should have been subject to a return guarantee because of his family ties in Italy; and that surrender should have been postponed because of pending Italian criminal proceedings. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that a prosecution EAW is not limited to investigative purposes and may legitimately be issued to secure the requested person’s presence before the issuing judicial authority and ensure participation in criminal proceedings. By contrast, a European Investigation Order is aimed at acquiring evidence and cannot be used to transfer a person merely for trial attendance. The Court also held that the alleged earlier extradition request from Montenegro did not bar surrender, since no current competing request had been shown. As to the possible life sentence, the EAW expressly stated that Austrian law provides for review of the penalty after twenty years, or access to clemency measures allowing the sentence not to be executed: this was sufficient for the purposes of Article 19 of Law No. 69/2005. The Court further held that the requested person had not established genuine and stable integration in Italy capable of justifying a return guarantee, and that the pending Italian proceedings did not require postponement of surrender. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the surrender order upheld.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the execution of a six-year prison sentence imposed for continuing theft offences committed in Romania between August 2018 and June 2022. The Court of Appeal of Milan ordered surrender. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that surrender should have been refused under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005 because of his residence and social integration in Italy, and that the Italian court had failed to verify the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Romanian prisons. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that, for the social rehabilitation refusal ground in execution EAW cases, the five-year lawful and effective residence or stay requirement remains a necessary prerequisite. The 2023 reform broadened the category of persons who may invoke the refusal ground, extending it beyond Italian and EU citizens, but did not remove the minimum five-year residence requirement. Only once that temporal requirement is established must the court assess the further indicators of integration listed in Article 18-bis, including family, work, linguistic, cultural, social and economic ties. In the present case, the Court of Appeal had found no proof of stable residence in Italy for at least five years; the documents showed, at most, residence from 2023, while the commission of offences in Romania between 2018 and 2022 pointed against stable integration in Italy. As to detention conditions, the Court held that the defence had submitted only generic allegations and had not identified any specific, current and reliable source showing a concrete risk in Romanian prisons. In the absence of such material, the executing court was not required to seek supplementary information. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the surrender order upheld.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the execution of a prison sentence resulting from two convictions: one for unlawful drug trafficking committed in December 2020 and one for personal injury committed in February 2016, the latter conviction having led to the revocation of a previously suspended sentence. The Court of Appeal of Florence ordered surrender, finding that the offences satisfied double criminality, that no refusal grounds applied, that the requested person was not genuinely integrated in Italy, and that postponement of surrender was not justified despite pending Italian criminal proceedings. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that the drug offence concerned only the free transfer of 1.04 grams of cannabis and would amount merely to an administrative violation under Italian law; that surrender should have been postponed because the Italian proceedings concerned more serious facts and were already at trial stage; and that his family ties in Italy established sufficient social integration. The Italian Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It held that the Romanian drug offence concerned the transfer of drugs to another person and therefore corresponded to the offence under Article 73 of Presidential Decree No. 309/1990, not to the administrative offence relating only to possession for personal use. The Court further held that postponement of surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005 is discretionary and had been reasonably refused, given that the Romanian sentence was final and significant, while the Italian proceedings were still pending at first instance. Temporary transfer to Italy was also unavailable because no request had been made by the issuing judicial authority. Finally, the Court held that the mere presence of the requested person’s mother and partner in Italy did not prove stable integration, especially in the absence of evidence of lawful employment, identity documents or genuine social roots. The surrender order was therefore upheld.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for the execution of a sentence imposed by the Calafat Tribunal. The Court of Appeal of Milan ordered surrender only for the offence of driving without a licence, refusing surrender for the other offences. The requested person challenged the decision, arguing that double criminality was lacking because the Italian offence requires recidivism within two years and the previous conviction had been issued in Romania, not in Italy; he also relied on social rehabilitation, family life, the best interests of his minor daughter, proportionality, and execution of the sentence in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that double criminality does not require perfect correspondence between the legal elements of the foreign and domestic offences: it is sufficient that the conduct is criminal in both legal systems. Recidivism, understood as repetition of unlawful conduct, was not a concept exclusive to Italian law and could be assessed by reference to the Romanian conviction. The Court further held that the requested person had not shown lawful and effective residence in Italy for at least five years, since the relevant links documented by the defence dated only from 2024. The complaints based on the best interests of the child were considered generic, as no specific evidence had been provided on cohabitation, the child’s actual situation, or any systemic deficiencies in Romania affecting detained parents or their children. The Court also rejected the proportionality argument, noting that the sentence exceeded the four-month threshold for execution EAWs and that execution in Italy cannot be requested outside the statutory refusal grounds. The surrender order was upheld.

The case concerns the execution in Italy of an executive European Arrest Warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authorities for the surrender of a person convicted of using a false instrument, the issuing State having consented to the sentence being served in Italy. The Court of Appeal had acknowledged the appellant's settled residence in Italy and the issuing State's consent to transfer of execution, yet refused recognition of the foreign judgment on the ground that, after dissolving the cumulative sentence, the penalty attributable to the surrendered offence (four months) fell below the six-month threshold set for recognition of foreign judgments. The Court of Cassation held that the appellate court had no power to unilaterally re-determine or increase the sentence set by the foreign court, and that the six-month residual-penalty threshold for recognition under Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA cannot be read so as to neutralise the optional refusal ground under Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA based on the social rehabilitation interests of a person settled in the executing State, where the issuing State has already consented to domestic execution. The contested judgment was therefore annulled and remanded for a fresh assessment of the refusal ground under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005, applying the principles set out.

The case concerned an execution European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania for the enforcement of a final two-year prison sentence for aggravated theft and driving without a licence. The requested person resisted surrender, arguing that the Italian Court of Appeal had failed to assess documents allegedly showing stable integration in Italy and that refusal of surrender was required under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005 in order to allow the sentence to be served in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court held that, after Legislative Decree No. 10/2021, an appeal against a surrender decision may not be brought on grounds of defective reasoning, including alleged omission or misreading of evidence. In any event, the Court found that the requested person had not even alleged the essential statutory requirement of lawful and effective residence or stay in Italy for at least five years, which applies under the amended Article 18-bis. A post-arrest offer of employment was insufficient to prove such integration and, if anything, confirmed the weakness of the claim. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible and surrender remained ordered.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Court of Móstoles, Spain, for robbery and personal injury. The requested person was also in custody in Italy in separate drug-related proceedings and challenged the surrender decision because the Court of Appeal had refused to postpone surrender under Article 24 of Law No. 69/2005. The Italian Supreme Court held that the complaint concerned the discretionary assessment entrusted to the Court of Appeal when deciding whether surrender should be postponed to allow domestic proceedings to continue. Such an assessment, when supported by adequate reasoning, is not reviewable before the Supreme Court as a mere defect of reasoning. In any event, the Court noted that the Spanish proceedings were more advanced, since prosecution had already been brought and trial was pending, whereas the Italian proceedings were still at an early investigative stage. The requested person had also failed to identify any specific prejudice to his defence in Italy, relying only on a generic claim that surrender would impair his participation in the investigation. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court of Heidelberg, Germany, for the execution of a national arrest warrant relating to aggravated theft and fraud. The requested person challenged the surrender decision on the ground that the EAW did not expressly indicate the minimum and maximum penalties applicable under German law, as required by Article 6 of Law No. 69/2005, and argued that the Italian court should at least have requested supplementary information from the issuing authority. The Italian Supreme Court held that the omission of the penalty range in a prosecution EAW does not itself constitute a ground for refusal, since the grounds for refusal are exhaustively listed in Articles 18 and 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005. The Court further held that the EAW must be unequivocal but not necessarily explicit where the missing information can be inferred without uncertainty from the statutory provisions indicated in the warrant. Since the requested person had not shown any specific prejudice to his defence rights or any concrete risk of disproportionate or inhuman punishment, the appeal was dismissed and surrender remained ordered.

EAW must contain only the minimum formal information necessary to allow the executing judicial authority to decide promptly on surrender. The description of the offence and of the requested person’s role, including the “degree of participation”, need only be sufficient to enable the executing State to carry out the checks required by law, such as judicial origin, double criminality, ne bis in idem and territoriality. The warrant is not required to provide a detailed evidentiary account of the requested person’s conduct, nor may the executing authority review the evidential basis relied upon by the issuing authority. The expression “degree of participation” does not refer to the intensity of the person’s involvement, but to the different ways in which European legal systems classify participation in criminal associations, complicity, inchoate offences, incitement, attempt or conspiracy. Those distinctions are not decisive under Italian law, which is based on the equal liability of all participants in the offence. Therefore, where the warrant makes clear that the requested person provided essential assistance to the material perpetrator, the information is sufficient for surrender.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Judicial Court of Grasse, France, for the execution of a custodial measure in criminal proceedings concerning attempted robbery with violence committed by an organised group and participation in a criminal association. The requested person challenged the surrender order, arguing that the French investigative phase did not sufficiently protect the rights of defence, that the EAW did not adequately describe her role in the alleged offences, and that the Italian court should have assessed the evidential basis of the accusation, including an alibi document produced by the defence. The Italian Supreme Court rejected those arguments, holding that generic allegations about the secrecy of French investigative proceedings did not establish systemic or individualised deficiencies capable of justifying refusal. It further held that, after Legislative Decree No. 10/2021, the executing judicial authority is not required to review the seriousness of the evidence underlying a prosecution EAW, and that the information concerning the facts and the requested person’s degree of participation need only be sufficient to allow the statutory checks and a prompt surrender decision. The Court also rejected the constitutional challenge to Article 17(4) of Law No. 69/2005 and refused to make a preliminary reference to the CJEU, dismissing the appeal and leaving the surrender order in force.

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 an extradition request by North Macedonia for the prosecution of a Macedonian national accused of aggravated extortion committed in Prilep in March 2025. The Court of Appeal of Milan declared that the conditions for extradition were met. The requested person challenged the decision before the Italian Supreme Court, arguing that his medical condition, identified as transverse myelitis, was incompatible with detention in North Macedonia; that the Macedonian prison system presented risks of inhuman or degrading treatment; and that his subsequent application for international protection in Italy should suspend the extradition proceedings or prevent surrender pending the administrative asylum procedure. The Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. As to health conditions, it held that the Court of Appeal had reasonably relied on the assessment of Italian prison doctors, according to which the previous condition was resolved and only residual thoraco-lumbar pain remained, manageable through physiotherapy and ordinary physical activity. The defence objections were considered repetitive and generic, including the opinion from a Macedonian prison doctor, which did not address the specific evolution of the illness. As to detention conditions, the Court held that the Court of Appeal had properly considered the 2024 CPT report and the supplementary information provided by North Macedonia. The critical findings in that report concerned Idrizovo prison, whereas the requested person would be detained in Bitola prison, for which individualized information had been obtained. The Court therefore found no concrete risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Finally, the Supreme Court held that there is no preliminary or suspensive relationship between extradition proceedings and an international protection procedure. A request for international protection submitted by the requested person does not, by itself, justify suspension of the extradition proceedings or refusal of surrender pending its determination. The appeal was declared inadmissible.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Court of Cornellà de Llobregat, Spain, in criminal proceedings for drug trafficking within a wider investigation into a criminal association aimed at narcotics trafficking. The requested person challenged the surrender decision, arguing that the Italian Court of Appeal had failed to carry out an autonomous assessment of the precautionary grounds underlying the EAW and should have awaited the outcome of an appeal pending in Spain against the domestic custodial measure. The Italian Supreme Court held that those complaints sought a review of the foreign precautionary order, which falls within the jurisdiction of the issuing State and is outside the scope of review of the executing judicial authority. However, the Court found that the Court of Appeal had failed to rule on the requested person’s express request, as an Italian citizen, that any future custodial sentence be served in Italy under Article 19(2) of Law No. 69/2005. Since formal Italian citizenship was sufficient and no further factual assessment was required, the Supreme Court directly added the condition that surrender be subject to the requested person’s return to Italy to serve any sentence imposed in Spain, dismissing the appeal in all other respects.

The case concerned a prosecution European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court of Hechingen, Germany, for several alleged offences of computer fraud committed in Germany, including in an organised form. The requested person challenged the surrender decision, arguing that the Italian Court of Appeal had failed to examine possible Italian jurisdiction over the facts and the related optional refusal ground, and had also failed to rule on his request to serve any future custodial sentence in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court held that the territorial-jurisdiction objection under Article 18-bis of Law No. 69/2005 was inadmissible because it had not been raised before the Court of Appeal and, in any event, required proof that Italian jurisdiction had already been effectively exercised over the same offence when the EAW was received. However, the Court found that the Court of Appeal had omitted to rule on the requested person’s express request, as an Italian citizen, that any sentence imposed in Germany be served in Italy under Article 19(2) of Law No. 69/2005. Since formal Italian citizenship was sufficient and no further factual assessment was required, the Supreme Court directly made surrender conditional on the requested person’s return to Italy to serve any sentence imposed in Germany, dismissing the appeal in all other respects.

In proceedings concerning a European Arrest Warrant issued by Germany for VAT evasion offences, the Supreme Court of Cassation held that the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the ordinary German public prosecutor, in favour of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), does not constitute a ground for refusal of surrender under Italian law. The Court clarified that EPPO competence under Regulation 2017/1939 is concurrent rather than exclusive and that disputes concerning the allocation of investigative powers between EPPO and national prosecuting authorities fall within the legal system of the issuing State and cannot be reviewed by the executing judicial authority. The Court further stated that the executing State may assess procedural violations allegedly committed in the issuing State only where they result in a breach of fundamental constitutional principles or inalienable rights protected under Article 2 of Law No. 69/2005, the TEU, or the ECHR. It also reiterated that, in tax-related European Arrest Warrant proceedings, the requirement of double criminality is mitigated and does not require perfect correspondence between the foreign and domestic offences, nor identical punishment thresholds or sanctioning regimes, provided that the conduct remains criminally punishable under both legal systems.