Extradition and "Ne Bis In Idem": Ruling 19481/2025 of the Court of Cassation Clarifies the Limits of the International Principle

The principle of "ne bis in idem", which prevents being tried twice for the same act, is a fundamental guarantee. However, its application becomes complicated when justice crosses national borders, especially in matters of extradition. The recent ruling no. 19481 of April 29, 2025, by the Court of Cassation addresses precisely this delicate issue, clarifying the limits of the international "ne bis in idem" in relation to non-European Union states. A topic of great relevance for international criminal law.

"Ne Bis In Idem" in the Global Context

"Ne bis in idem" (not twice for the same thing) is a cornerstone of due process, recognised at national level and in numerous international conventions. It protects individuals from endless judicial persecution. At the national level, its observance is almost absolute. But in the international context, when an individual has already been tried in one country and another state requests their extradition for the same act, the dynamics change. International law modulates the application of this principle, with stricter protection within the EU compared to non-EU states.

Ruling 19481/2025: The Case of S. M. U.

The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 19481 of 2025 (President P. D. S. P., Rapporteur A. C.), ruled on the appeal of S. M. U., whose extradition to the United States of America had been requested for acts for which he had already been convicted with a final judgment in Switzerland. The question was whether such a prior conviction should preclude extradition based on the international "ne bis in idem".

The Supreme Court provided a clear answer, summarised in the following maxim:

In matters of extradition abroad, the principle of international "ne bis in idem" does not preclude surrender if, for the same act and against the same person, a final judgment has been issued in a non-European Union state.

This statement is crucial. The Court of Cassation establishes that, outside the European Union, a final judgment issued by a third country is not sufficient to prevent extradition. In the case of S. M. U., the conviction in Switzerland did not constitute an obstacle to his surrender to the United States. The decision of the Court of Appeal of Turin was therefore confirmed.

Reasons for the Interpretation

The reasons lie in the nature of international law and the sovereignty of states. Unlike the EU context, where "ne bis in idem" is reinforced by instruments such as Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, relations with non-EU states are governed by bilateral treaties or multilateral conventions with often different provisions. The absence of a uniform international regulatory framework allows for case-by-case assessment of extradition, balancing individual guarantees and international judicial cooperation. The decision reflects the need to:

• Ensure the effectiveness of international judicial cooperation.
• Prevent an accused from evading justice.
• Respect the jurisdictional sovereignty of the requesting state.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 19481 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation clarifies that "ne bis in idem" does not operate automatically and unconditionally for final judgments issued by non-European Union member states. This decision underscores the need for careful assessment of the specific rules governing relations between Italy and individual third countries. For those facing extradition issues, it is crucial to seek specialised legal advice. International criminal law is a constantly evolving field, where the correct interpretation of norms can make a difference in protecting one's rights.