Extradition and Statute of Limitations: The Court of Cassation Outlines the Powers of the Requested State (Judgment no. 19473 of 2025)

International judicial cooperation is a cornerstone in the fight against transnational crime. However, it often raises complex issues, especially when different legal systems are involved. One of the most debated aspects concerns extradition and, in particular, the assessment of the statute of limitations for the offense by the State to which the surrender of an individual is requested. On this point, the Court of Cassation has ruled with a highly significant judgment, no. 19473 of 09/04/2025, offering essential clarifications on the limits of the powers of the requested State.

The Context of Extradition and the Issue of the Statute of Limitations

Extradition is a mechanism whereby one State surrenders an individual accused or convicted of an offense to another State, so that they may be brought to trial or serve their sentence. It is governed by international treaties and domestic laws, such as Article 705 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. Among the grounds that may justify the refusal of extradition, the statute of limitations for the offense plays a fundamental role. But who is responsible for determining whether the offense has become time-barred? Is it the requesting State, which has submitted the extradition request, or the requested State, which must decide on the surrender, that must carry out this verification?

The issue is not insignificant. It involves a delicate balance between the sovereignty of the requested State and the need to ensure effective judicial cooperation, while respecting the specificities of the legal system of the requesting State. The judgment in question, which involved R. I. Y. as the defendant, rejecting the appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Salerno, intervened precisely in this debate.

In matters of extradition to a foreign country, it is not incumbent upon the requested State, based on international practices related to the application of treaties that provide for the statute of limitations for the offense as a ground for refusal of surrender, to autonomously determine the expiry of the limitation period, as this is a verification that may involve complex legal assessments reserved for the requesting State, which, if prompted, can provide useful indications, which the requested State has no power to review. (Case concerning an extradition request submitted by the United States of America).

This maxim crystallizes a cardinal principle: the State to which the extradition request is addressed cannot substitute itself for the requesting State in ascertaining whether the statute of limitations for the offense has expired. The reason is clear: the statute of limitations is a legal institution that can vary considerably from one legal system to another, both in terms of time limits and causes of interruption or suspension. Carrying out such an assessment would require the requested State to apply foreign laws, a task that, in addition to being intrinsically complex, could infringe upon the sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction of the State that initiated the criminal proceedings. The Court therefore emphasized that this verification is a prerogative of the requesting State, which, if consulted, can provide the necessary indications, without the requested State having the power to review them on their merits.

Practical Implications and the Principle of Cooperation

The decision of the Court of Cassation, with President D. A. G. and Rapporteur G. M. S., reiterates the importance of the principle of mutual trust between States in the context of judicial cooperation. This approach is fundamental to prevent extradition requests from becoming an opportunity to re-examine the merits of the legal issues of the requesting State. The judgment, which concerned an extradition request submitted by the United States of America, highlights that the role of the requested State is primarily to verify the existence of the formal and substantial conditions provided for by treaties and domestic laws, but not to override the assessment of procedural and substantial aspects that are exclusively within the competence of the other legal system.

• **Respect for Sovereignty:** Each State retains full autonomy in determining its own procedural and substantive rules, including the regulation of the statute of limitations.
• **Effectiveness of Cooperation:** Limiting the review by the requested State promotes the speed and effectiveness of extradition procedures, reducing the scope for disputes.
• **Principle of Specialty:** Although not directly mentioned in the maxim, the principle of specialty in extradition (the extradited person can only be tried for the offenses for which they have been extradited) is part of a framework of respect for mutual guarantees and competencies.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 19473 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation provides an authoritative and necessary clarification on extradition matters. By establishing that the requested State cannot autonomously determine the statute of limitations for the offense, the Supreme Court strengthens the principle of mutual trust and respect for jurisdictional competencies between States. This ruling helps to more precisely delineate the boundaries of international judicial cooperation, ensuring that extradition can proceed more smoothly and efficiently, while fully respecting the legal guarantees and specificities of each legal system. For legal professionals, this judgment represents an essential reference point for correctly interpreting the complex dynamics that characterize jurisdictional relations with foreign authorities.