The requested person was detained in Italy pending extradition to South Korea pursuant to an international arrest warrant and sought revocation or, alternatively, replacement of detention in prison with a less restrictive measure. The Milan Court of Appeal rejected revocation, finding that the risk of flight persisted because the requested person had no pre-existing stable ties with Italy and had sufficient means to leave the country. However, taking into account the personal circumstances documented by the defence, the absence of previous convictions and the availability of a stable residence, the Court held that continued detention in prison was disproportionate. It therefore replaced detention in prison with house arrest subject to electronic monitoring, with the replacement becoming effective only once the electronic monitoring device was available.

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

For the purposes of granting extradition, in order to satisfy the requirement of double criminality it is not necessary that the abstract structure of the offence under foreign law corresponds exactly to a provision under Italian law. It is sufficient that the same conduct constitutes a criminal offence in both legal systems, irrespective of any differences in legal classification or in the applicable penalties. In the present case, extradition was requested on the basis that the person concerned had displayed and used credit cards of which he was only apparently the holder, and had also affixed forged signatures on sales receipts. It is clear that such conduct, as described, amounts under Italian law to both the offence provided for by Article 55 of Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2007 and the offence of fraud.