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 principle of speciality requires that the facts and legal classifications for which surrender is requested and granted be indicated clearly and precisely; a mere generic reference to compliance with the principle under the applicable treaty is not sufficient. Consequently, a lack of clarity in the description of the facts, or the improper classification of the conduct under domestic conspiracy or criminal association offences solely for the purpose of verifying double criminality, may create the risk that the requesting State will prosecute the extradited person for offences different from those covered by the original extradition request or any subsequent extension, in breach of Article 721 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure and the principle of speciality.

For the purposes of extradition to or from Canada, the clause set out in Article III(e) of the bilateral Treaty of 13 January 2005, ratified by Law No. 7 of 2008, provides, as a mandatory ground for refusal of surrender, only the statute of limitations as determined under the law of the requesting State.