→ 🇻🇪 Venezuela

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

With regard to the so-called “Petruhhin doctrine” developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the principle according to which the requested State is obliged to inform the State of nationality, in order to allow the latter to issue, in turn, a European Arrest Warrant for the purpose of prosecuting the same acts, can only operate within the phase specifically devoted to the substantive examination of the extradition request, and cannot therefore be extended to the provisional detention phase, which is instead the subject of the present proceedings.

In extradition proceedings, the Court of Appeal may base a decision refusing extradition on a measure adopted by the competent Territorial Commission of the Ministry of the Interior which has granted the requested person subsidiary international protection (which is less extensive than refugee status), on account of the risk of exposure to inhuman or degrading treatment in the event of return to the requesting State, provided that such measure is considered by the court to be complete, certain and reliable.