🇮🇹 Italy →

The decision on an extradition request—even where it takes the form of a ruling of no need to proceed due to the person’s absence from the national territory—falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal sitting in its collegiate composition, and not of a delegated judge. Accordingly, where, as in the present case, the delegated judge has exercised a power that the legal system reserves to the Court of Appeal, the impugned decision must be deemed affected by absolute nullity for lack of judicial capacity, as it entails a violation of the constitutional principle of the natural judge pre-established by law.

A judgment rejecting an extradition request — even where such rejection follows the mere withdrawal of the request by the requesting State — precludes the adoption of a subsequent decision granting extradition following the submission by the same State of a new request concerning the same facts. On the contrary, a decision of a purely procedural nature (such as one based on the absence of the requested person from the national territory) is not capable of producing the preclusive effect. Accordingly, even if the sought person is no longer present within Italian territory, the person has an interest in obtaining a decision on the merits rather than a merely procedural ruling. However, if the Court has already obtained and deemed adequate the assurances requested from the requesting State, it may no longer issue a judgment rejecting the extradition request on the merits, but only a decision of “no grounds to proceed”.

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.

Withdrawal of the extradition request: where the extradition request is withdrawn with immediate effect (due to the statute of limitations on the enforcement of the sentence under swiss law), any judgment of the court of appeal granting extradition must be quashed without remittal, since the withdrawal of the request by the requesting state removes the conditions necessary for granting the relief sought within the initiated proceedings.

In extradition proceedings, the party retains an interest in appealing a decision of no need to proceed issued on account of the absence of supplementary documentation relevant to the determination, where the party had primarily sought a ruling on the merits of the conditions for extraditability on the basis of the extradition request. This is because a decision of a purely procedural nature is not capable of producing the preclusive effect, under Article 707 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, that would otherwise bar a subsequent decision granting extradition following a new request submitted by the same State for the same facts

The absence of the person sought for extradition, even if due to a “deliberate escape,” results in a ruling that the case should not proceed; the presence of the person sought for extradition in the requested State is an essential prerequisite for the application of the extradition process: if that person is no longer within the territory of the Italian Republic, this essential prerequisite is no longer met

Presence in the national territory as a prerequisite for extradition: the presence in the italian territory of the person whose extradition is sought constitutes an essential prerequisite for the request of the foreign state. it follows that, where it is established that the requested person is no longer present in italy, the conditions for ruling on extraditability are not met and the court must declare that there is no need to proceed.

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