🇮🇹 Italy →

In extradition matters, the seizure of the corpus delicti and of items pertaining thereto, ordered on an urgent basis by the judicial police within the framework of an extradition procedure, must be validated by the Court of Appeal. The latter is required to provide reasons—on the basis of the applicable conventional framework, as well as Article 714(1) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, insofar as not derogated—regarding the existence of a nexus of pertinence between the seized assets and the offence underlying the extradition request, through an assessment of the evidentiary needs put forward by the requesting foreign authority (in the present case, a seizure carried out by the judicial police in the context of an extradition procedure initiated by the United States of America).

In extradition proceedings, the so-called "Petruhhin mechanism", although applicable during the pretrial phase, always requires citizenship of an EU Member State: this mechanism, actually, does not apply indiscriminately, but only to the benefit of persons for whom the provisions of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) regarding Union citizenship and Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) give rise to the applicability of the Treaties

Proceedings before the Court of Appeal, and not only those before the Court of Cassation, are conducted in chamber pursuant to Article 127 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, since the European Arrest Warrant was received four days before the in camera hearing, the party was entitled to request an adjournment of the hearing in order to file a defence brief in compliance with the statutory time limits, and such request was timely submitted in order to examine the documentation received. The refusal to grant time for the defence may give rise to an intermediate nullity, as it affects the assistance of the accused, provided that— as in the present case — the objection was raised in a timely manner.

In proceedings concerning a European Arrest Warrant, the injured party has no standing to participate in the surrender procedure, as it does not fall within the categories of persons exhaustively listed under Article 17(1) of Law No. 69 of 22 April 2005. (Case concerning the application by the political party Vox to intervene, as an injured party, in the execution proceedings of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Spanish Tribunal Supremo against C.P.C., in relation to offences connected with the organisation, in 2017, of the Catalan independence referendum.)

The withdrawal of the extradition request entails the revocation of real precautionary measures, with the consequent return to the rightful owner of the assets subject to seizure, given that—pursuant to Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959—the requesting State is not entitled to dispose of assets obtained through the execution of a letter rogatory that has subsequently been withdrawn. (In the present case, the Court quashed without remittal the order by which the Court of Appeal had ordered the return of the seized assets, limited to those not yet transferred to the requesting authority).

The case concerned the attempted reliance, in relations between Italy and India, on the 1873 bilateral extradition convention concluded between Italy and the United Kingdom, at a time when the United Kingdom exercised colonial authority over India. The Rome Court of Appeal examined whether treaties concluded by a colonial power could continue to apply to a newly independent successor State notwithstanding the general “clean slate” principle. It held that devolution agreements between the former colonial power and the newly independent State are, in themselves, res inter alios acta and cannot be invoked against the original treaty counterparty unless followed by a formal act of succession, in the case of multilateral treaties, or by a specific agreement between the successor State and the original counterparty, usually by exchange of notes, in the case of bilateral treaties. The Court further observed that continuation could also be inferred from unequivocal conduct showing both States’ intention to remain bound by the treaty. In the absence of such formal steps or conclusive conduct, the Court held that the 1873 Italy–United Kingdom extradition convention was not applicable between Italy and India.