Extradition and Temporary Protection: The Court of Cassation (Judgment No. 26811/2025) Strengthens Dialogue with the EU

In an increasingly complex international context, marked by conflicts and migratory flows, the issue of international protection and extradition takes on crucial importance. The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 26811 of July 16, 2025, with rapporteur D'A. F., intervenes precisely on this delicate balance, charting a clear path for Italian authorities called upon to decide on extradition requests involving individuals benefiting from temporary protection in other European Union member states. This ruling, which annulled with referral the decision of the Court of Appeal of Trieste of April 28, 2025, aligns with the principles of European law and aims to ensure more effective protection of fundamental rights.

The specific case concerned the defendant P. Y., a Ukrainian citizen, for whom an extradition request had been made by Ukraine. The peculiarity of the situation lay in the fact that P. Y. had obtained a temporary protection permit from the Portuguese authorities, pursuant to Directive 2001/55/EC and Council Implementing Decision 2022/382/EU, as a person fleeing the ongoing conflict in his country of origin. The Court of Cassation therefore had to address the issue of how to balance the extradition request from a third country with the protection status granted by another EU member state.

The Cornerstone Principle: The Need for Prior Dialogue

The heart of the Supreme Court's decision lies in the affirmation of a fundamental principle, destined to guide future decisions in this matter. The summary of the judgment, which we report in full, clearly illustrates the path that Italian authorities must follow:

In matters of extradition abroad, when the request for surrender is made by the third country of origin of a person to whom another European Union member state has granted, under Directive 2001/55/EC, a temporary protection permit, the requested Italian authority must initiate a prior dialogue with the state that granted the protection, in order to ascertain whether it obstructs the execution of the extradition or whether the authority that granted it intends to revoke it, pursuant to Article 28 of the same directive, with the application of the principles affirmed by the CJEU judgment of June 18, 2024, C. 352/22, with regard to persons who have been granted refugee status under Directive 2011/95/EU. (Case concerning extradition requested by Ukraine from one of its citizens, to whom temporary protection had been granted by the Portuguese authorities, under Directive 2001/55/EC and Council Implementing Decision 2022/382/EU of March 4, 2022, for persons fleeing the ongoing war in that country).

This summary is of extraordinary importance. The Court of Cassation, presided over by G. M. S., establishes that it is not sufficient to assess the extradition request in isolation. Instead, it is mandatory for the Italian judicial authority to initiate a dialogue with the EU member state that granted temporary protection. This exchange of information is crucial to understand whether the protection is still valid, whether it obstructs extradition, or whether the granting state intends to revoke it, as provided for by Article 28 of Directive 2001/55/EC. The judgment emphasizes the extension of the principles already affirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in judgment C. 352/22, originally relating to refugee status (Directive 2011/95/EU), to temporary protection as well. This means that the protection afforded to those fleeing a conflict, although different from refugee status, deserves similar consideration in terms of non-extradition.

Harmonization of Law and Protection of Fundamental Rights

The decision of the Court of Cassation is part of a broader normative and jurisprudential framework, in which national law is increasingly intertwined with European and international law. Article 705 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs extradition, must be read and interpreted in light of the principles of sincere cooperation between member states and the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Articles 18 and 19) and the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Article 33).

The legal and jurisprudential references cited by the Court of Cassation highlight a path aimed at ensuring that extradition decisions do not compromise the protection already granted. This includes:

• The application of Directive 2001/55/EC on temporary protection and its Article 28 concerning the cessation or withdrawal of protection.
• The extension of the principles of CJEU judgment C. 352/22, which emphasizes the need for consultation for refugees, to beneficiaries of temporary protection.
• Respect for the principle of non-refoulement, i.e., the prohibition of returning or extraditing a person to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened.

This approach ensures that an individual, such as P. Y., who has found refuge and protection in an EU country, cannot be extradited without a prior and thorough assessment of the consequences and without coordination with the state that offered such protection. This avoids the risk of conflicting decisions and strengthens the coherence of the European protection system.

Conclusions: A Step Forward in the Protection of Rights in Europe

Judgment No. 26811/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents a significant step forward in the protection of the rights of beneficiaries of temporary protection within the European Union. By emphasizing the need for prior dialogue between the authorities of the member states, the Court not only ensures greater coherence in the application of European law but also strengthens the protection of individuals fleeing conflict situations. This decision reiterates the importance of an integrated and collaborative approach between states, where international security and justice are combined with the safeguarding of human rights, outlining a future where protection granted in an EU country cannot be nullified by an extradition request without careful and coordinated assessment.