European Arrest Warrant: Supreme Court Clarifies Abnormality of Rejection - Judgment No. 21255 of 2025
The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is a crucial instrument for judicial cooperation within the European Union, enabling the swift surrender of wanted persons. The Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 21255 of June 4, 2025, has provided a fundamental clarification regarding the limits of a judge's power in issuing an EAW, qualifying the rejection of a public prosecutor's request as "abnormal" under certain circumstances. This decision strengthens legal certainty and the effectiveness of transnational procedures.
The European Arrest Warrant: Function and Regulations
Established by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and transposed into Italian law by Law No. 69 of April 22, 2005 (Articles 28, 29, 31), the EAW is a judicial order for the arrest and surrender of a person between Member States for criminal purposes. Its issuance is linked to the existence of a custodial order, such as a pre-trial detention order or a final judgment. The EAW is an executive mechanism, ancillary to the measure that constitutes its prerequisite.
Judgment 21255/2025: The Principle of Abnormality
The Supreme Court, in Judgment No. 21255 of 2025, examined the case of the defendant P. P.M. E. T., quashing without referral a decision by the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (GIP) of Bologna. The GIP had rejected the public prosecutor's request to issue an EAW, despite having already ordered a precautionary measure. The Court of Cassation declared such a rejection "abnormal," due to "lack of concrete power."
The Court reiterated that, once a precautionary order has been issued, the judge cannot re-examine the precautionary needs already recognized when the EAW was requested. The latter is a mandatory act to enforce the pre-existing custodial order. A rejection based on a new assessment of the merits of the precautionary measure exceeds the judge's powers, constituting an anomaly that renders the decision abnormal.
The decision by which the judge who issued the order applying a custodial measure rejects the public prosecutor's request for the issuance of a European arrest warrant to enforce it is abnormal, as it is issued in the absence of concrete power. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that, in such a scenario, given the ancillary nature of the European warrant to the custodial order, the judge, when requested to issue it, is precluded from verifying the current relevance of the precautionary needs already recognized).
This maxim emphasizes that the judge, when asked to issue the EAW, acts as an executive body for a decision already made. Therefore, they cannot question the current relevance of the precautionary needs, which have already been assessed and ascertained with the issuance of the custodial measure. This principle is fundamental for the coherence and effectiveness of international judicial cooperation.
Implications and Jurisprudential Framework
The decision, presided over by A. E. and with G. E. A. as rapporteur, aligns with previous rulings by the Court of Cassation (e.g., No. 21470 of 2012 Rv. 252722-01) and the United Sections (No. 2850 of 2014 Rv. 257433-01, No. 30769 of 2012 Rv. 252891-01), strengthening practice and predictability. The main implications are:
- Procedural Clarity: The judge who has already issued a precautionary measure cannot re-examine the merits of the precautionary needs during the EAW issuance phase.
- Effectiveness of the EAW: The speed and functionality of the instrument are guaranteed, avoiding unjustified delays.
- Legal Certainty: A fundamental principle for international judicial cooperation is consolidated.
Conclusions
Judgment No. 21255 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is a significant ruling for international criminal law. It clarifies that the rejection of a European Arrest Warrant, based on a new assessment of precautionary needs already ascertained, is an abnormal act. This decision not only consolidates jurisprudence but also ensures the full operability and effectiveness of an indispensable tool for combating transnational crime, reiterating the importance of respecting procedural roles for the proper functioning of European justice.
