Judgment No. 14088 of 2024: Unjust Detention in Passive Extradition
Judgment No. 14088 of February 8, 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Milan, addresses a crucial aspect of Italian jurisprudence on extradition and unjust detention. The Court declared the appeal filed by J. S. inadmissible, highlighting an important consideration: the deprivation of personal liberty suffered during a passive extradition procedure can be considered unjust, even if the proceedings conclude with a procedural ruling and not with a denial of extradition. This aspect deserves in-depth reflection.
The Legal Context of the Judgment
The Court's decision is part of a complex regulatory framework where individual rights are protected by various provisions at both national and European levels. In particular, Articles 714 and 715 of the Code of Criminal Procedure govern precautionary measures and extradition procedures. However, the Court emphasized that, even in the absence of an unfavorable outcome for extradition, the suffering of unjustified deprivation of personal liberty must be recognized and compensated.
- Legislative references: New Code of Criminal Procedure art. 314;
- Constitutional Court, New Code of Criminal Procedure art. 715;
- Constitutional Court, New Code of Criminal Procedure art. 714.
Headnote of the Judgment and its Significance
Passive extradition - Provisional application of precautionary measure pursuant to Articles 714 and 715 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Right to reparation for unjust detention - Existence. In matters of reparation for unjust detention, the deprivation of personal liberty suffered within the scope of a passive extradition procedure may be deemed unjust even if such proceedings conclude, not with a decision unfavorable to extradition, but with a ruling of a strictly procedural nature, such as a dismissal for failure to proceed due to the whereabouts of the person sought for extradition being unknown.
This headnote highlights a fundamental aspect of human rights protection. The Court, in fact, acts as a guardian of individual rights, affirming that any deprivation of liberty must be justified and proportionate. The decision to consider detention in a passive extradition context as unjust, even in the absence of an extradition denial, sets an important legal precedent that could influence future cases of this nature.
Conclusions
Judgment No. 14088 of 2024 represents a significant step towards greater protection of the rights of citizens involved in extradition proceedings. The Court has demonstrated sensitivity to issues related to unjust detention, recognizing that respect for human dignity must prevail over purely procedural matters. This ruling could encourage broader reflection on the need for legislative reforms concerning extradition and human rights, in order to ensure that every deprivation of liberty is always justified and protected by adequate safeguards.
