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.

The judicial authority cannot rely on generic assurances provided by the Hungarian authorities where such assurances are not capable of guaranteeing compliance with the principle that the specific custodial treatment to which the requested person will actually be subjected must be made known. The decision must instead be based on the acquisition of “individualised” information on the detention regime.

Where the information concerning the nature of the European Arrest Warrant and the detention regime is insufficient, the judicial authority is required to seek further details from the judicial and prison authorities of the issuing State. Should the information provided prove to be lacking or inadequate, the warrant may be deemed unsuitable, potentially leading to a reassessment of the surrender request.

Hungary sought the requested person’s surrender under an execution EAW to enforce a final two-year custodial sentence for drug offences. The Italian Supreme Court held that, where accredited international sources disclose structural prison deficiencies, the executing judicial authority must request individualised information identifying the prison in which the requested person will be detained and the concrete conditions prevailing there. The general absence of an EU or national suspension of EAW cooperation with Hungary was not sufficient to dispense with that assessment, particularly in light of the 2023 CPT findings concerning overcrowding and degrading detention conditions. The Court therefore quashed the surrender decision and remitted the case for further inquiries, while holding that residence and family ties in Austria, rather than in the executing State, did not constitute a ground for refusal and that any transfer of sentence enforcement must follow the separate prisoner-transfer procedure.