The United States requested the extradition of a person accused of six offences involving securities fraud and the laundering of insider-trading proceeds. The court found that the authenticated arrest warrant and supporting affidavits established a prima facie case on all six counts, with the alleged conduct corresponding to insider-trading and money-laundering offences under Singapore law and satisfying double criminality. It held that the committal hearing did not determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that challenges to the quality and weight of the evidence, including the contention that the trading information was publicly available, were matters for trial in the requesting state. The court also attributed the prolonged proceedings and resulting remand period to repeated applications by the requested person and his counsel, and rejected an application for supervised Internet access because judicial review of the prison authorities’ decision fell within the High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. Finding no applicable statutory bar to surrender, it ordered committal to prison pending the Minister’s surrender warrant, subject to the statutory opportunity to seek review of detention.

The requested person challenged a decision authorising surrender to Hungary under a European Arrest Warrant issued to enforce a sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment for fraud offences. The Supreme Court of Cassation held that an individual assurance guaranteeing at least three square metres of personal space did not dispense with an assessment of the nature and arrangement of cell furniture, including fixed furnishings affecting freedom of movement, and of the applicable detention regime. It recalled that compensatory factors may rebut the presumption of an Article 3 ECHR violation arising from personal space below three square metres only under a semi-open detention regime, whereas a closed regime requires that minimum space after deducting sanitary facilities and fixed furnishings. The Court rejected the separate challenge concerning execution of the sentence in Italy because the requested person had neither established nor specifically alleged at least five years of lawful, effective and continuous residence or stay. It quashed the surrender decision and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal of Perugia for a fresh examination of the detention conditions.

Germany issued a prosecution EAW concerning the alleged fraudulent rental and retention of a car. The requested person argued that the rental agreement allowed the car to be taken to Italy and that its subsequent theft explained the failure to return it. The Court of Cassation held that double criminality requires the concrete conduct to be punishable in both States, without identical offence definitions, and that the alleged conduct could constitute fraud, fraudulent insolvency or misappropriation under Italian law. It declared the appeal inadmissible: further factual inquiries belong to the German authorities, while a challenge based solely on defective reasoning is unavailable under the applicable EAW appeal rules. Surrender remained subject to the condition that, following trial in Germany, the requested person be returned to Italy to serve any sentence imposed.

Germany sought the requested person’s surrender for prosecution after a rented car was allegedly not returned. On appeal against the Italian surrender order, the requested person challenged the identification of the alleged offender, sought additional evidence from Germany and disputed double criminality. The Court of Cassation held that the executing court could not reassess the evidence of guilt or request investigative material for that purpose; the asserted possibility of mistaken identity was not apparent on the face of the case. It also held that double criminality did not require the conduct to receive the same legal classification in both states, and declared the appeal inadmissible.

The Latvian authorities sought the surrender of the requested person under a European Arrest Warrant for the enforcement of a final custodial sentence. Following earlier decisions postponing its ruling because of detention conditions, the court examined additional assurances concerning protection against informal prisoner hierarchies and degrading treatment in Liepāja Prison. It found that the new information described concrete, individualised protective measures, but also appeared to assume that the requested person would be held on remand pending a future conviction. As the conviction was already final, uncertainty remained as to whether the sentence could actually be served in the institution covered by those assurances, preventing the court from concluding that the identified general risk had been eliminated. The court therefore deferred its surrender decision, reopened and adjourned the proceedings, and extended both the decision period and detention pending surrender by 60 days.

The requested person was arrested in Italy on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Czech Republic for the execution of a six-year prison sentence concerning several property-related offences and a driving offence. The Court noted that one of the underlying conducts did not appear to satisfy double criminality under Italian law and that one offence had already been covered by an earlier 2020 surrender from Italy to the Czech Republic, without any apparent waiver of the principle of speciality or subsequent request for extension of surrender. It therefore requested further information from the Czech authorities concerning the EAW, the exact sentence to be served, the duration of pre-trial detention and the possible waiver of speciality. Although the arrest was validated, the Court ordered the requested person’s immediate release, finding no concrete flight risk in light of her Italian citizenship, long-standing residence, family and employment ties in Italy and the fact that she had not absconded after becoming aware of the Czech judgment.

Chile sought the extradition of a former mayor to enforce a final sentence of five years and one day for embezzlement committed in public office, relying on the United Nations Convention against Corruption. The requested person challenged the ministerial extradition decision in civil proceedings, disputing the reliability of assurances concerning prison placement, detention conditions and credit for detention served in the Netherlands, and alleging sex discrimination because comparable male offenders could serve their sentences in better conditions. The Advocate General considered that interstate trust also applies to extradition based on that Convention, subject to concrete indications of fundamental rights risks, and that the Othman factors require an overall assessment rather than compliance with a mandatory checklist. He found no reviewable error in the appellate court’s assessment of the assurances and considered that the alleged difference between adequate women’s prison conditions and more favourable men’s prison conditions did not establish the refusal ground invoked under Article 10(1) of the Dutch Extradition Act. He recommended dismissal of the cassation appeal and explained that new factual material concerning Article 3 ECHR risks must be raised in fresh proceedings rather than examined for the first time in cassation.

The requested person challenged an order for his extradition to Poland to face a murder allegation arising from a group attack. He argued that the warrant did not adequately distinguish his alleged acts from those of the other participants, making both its factual particulars and the identification of an extradition offence insufficient. The High Court held that the warrant identified the time, place and victim and attributed specific violent acts to the requested person. It refused renewed permission to appeal, finding no realistic prospect of establishing a defect in the warrant or an error in the first-instance assessment.

Albania sought the requested person’s extradition from Italy to serve a two-year sentence for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. He challenged discrepancies in the extradition documents and raised objections concerning speciality, detention conditions, fair trial rights and criminal proceedings pending in Italy. The Court held that the European Convention on Extradition requires an executable conviction, but not an irrevocable one; it found the other objections unsubstantiated or matters for the Minister of Justice. It declared the appeal inadmissible, leaving the decision in favour of extradition in place.

The requested person challenged a detention order issued in a second Italian extradition proceeding initiated by Canada, arguing that time already spent in custody under an earlier extradition proceeding should be counted toward the new order because the alleged offences were connected. The Court held that, where separate extradition requests concern different facts, the time limit for a coercive measure is calculated by reference to each request and its surrender proceedings; the rule against successive detention orders for the same facts did not govern this case. It corrected the lower court’s statement about the start of the new measure’s one-year limit: the limit ran from notification of the order on 30 July 2026, even though the requested person was already detained under another order. The complaint about delayed translation was inadmissible because no concrete prejudice to the defence had been alleged, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Italian Court of Cassation declared inadmissible an appeal against a decision ordering the surrender of the requested person to Austria under a prosecution EAW concerning an aggravated residential burglary allegedly committed together with others. The Court held that double criminality does not require exact correspondence between the legal classifications or aggravating circumstances in the two legal systems, provided that the underlying conduct constitutes an offence in both States and the applicable statutory threshold is met. It further held that, for a prosecution EAW, omission of the minimum and maximum penalty does not in itself constitute a ground for refusal and may at most justify a request for supplementary information. The EAW need only contain a description of the offence and the requested person’s participation sufficient to allow the executing authority to perform the statutory checks; under the post-2021 Italian framework, the executing court is not required to verify the existence of serious indications of guilt.

The court ordered the detention of a naturalized United States citizen pending extradition to the Czech Republic to serve a six-year sentence for tax evasion following a conviction in absentia that became final in 2000. Applying the presumption against bail in extradition proceedings, it held that the absence of flight risk is a condition precedent to considering whether special circumstances justify release, rather than one factor to be balanced against such circumstances. The requested person’s departure shortly after receiving notice of criminal charges, subsequent use of a different name, material misrepresentations to immigration authorities and the court, and lack of substantial family or financial ties established a flight risk notwithstanding his longstanding residence and friendships in the United States. The court distinguished Chapman and Bowman, in which the absence of flight risk had been established before special circumstances were considered. Having found a flight risk, it granted the Government’s motion to detain without determining whether special circumstances justified bail, despite the lengthy interval between the conviction, extradition request and arrest.

A Turkish citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States sought habeas review of her extradition certification for aggravated embezzlement and release after nearly two and a half years in custody. The court upheld the certification under the limited “any evidence” standard and rejected the discovery challenge, holding that the United States had no obligation or authority to obtain additional evidence on the petitioner’s behalf. It confirmed that the judicial power to grant bail in special circumstances extends to post-certification cases, notwithstanding the treaty’s provisions requiring detention until surrender. The requesting state’s prolonged delay and the availability of release in Turkey, particularly the fact that neither co-defendant had been detained, constituted special circumstances; the duration of custody and compelling family circumstances reinforced that conclusion when assessed together. Finding no danger to the community and that conditions could mitigate flight risk, the court ordered home detention with electronic monitoring at the petitioner’s expense, regular reporting to Pretrial Services, and travel restricted to Charlestown, Massachusetts, while leaving the extradition certification in place.

The petitioner, a Jamaican national subject to U.S. removal proceedings, was re-detained after immigration authorities learned through an Interpol Red Notice that he was wanted for murder in Jamaica, although the record did not establish that Jamaica had submitted a formal extradition request. After more than eleven months in custody, the District Court upheld his warrantless immigration arrest but held that continued detention required an individualized bond hearing at which the Government, rather than the petitioner, must prove dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted authority cautioning that Interpol Red Notices are not independently vetted for factual and legal justification and referred to ICE guidance stating that a Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant and should not be relied upon exclusively in immigration enforcement. The Court therefore granted the habeas petition in part and ordered a burden-shifted bond hearing, rather than the petitioner’s immediate release.

The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation reviewed an order surrendering a requested person to Romania under an EAW issued for the execution of a prison sentence. The defence relied on updated material concerning systemic detention conditions in Romania and on the requested person’s serious psychiatric condition, including severe depression with psychotic features and suicidal ideation. The Court held that, once a concrete Article 3 ECHR risk has been raised, the executing court must obtain sufficiently specific and individualised information concerning both the actual detention conditions and the treatment that will be available to the requested person. Since the Romanian information did not adequately identify the conditions of the cells, the personal space available or sufficiently address the requested person’s psychiatric needs, the surrender decision was annulled and the case remitted for a new assessment.