European Arrest Warrant: The Court of Cassation and Ruling 23117/2025 on Sentence Enforceability

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) represents one of the most significant tools for judicial cooperation in criminal matters among European Union Member States, aimed at simplifying and accelerating the surrender of persons sought for the enforcement of a sentence or for criminal proceedings. However, its application often raises complex issues, especially when different legal systems are involved. The recent ruling no. 23117 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation addresses one of these crucial points, clarifying the condition of "enforceability" of a conviction for the purpose of surrender abroad.

The European Arrest Warrant: A Pillar of Cooperation

The EAW, introduced by Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of June 13, 2002, and transposed into Italian law by Law no. 69 of April 22, 2005, revolutionized the traditional extradition system. Based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions, it aims to overcome the delays and formalities typical of extradition, facilitating the circulation of judicial decisions in an area of freedom, security, and justice. Its effectiveness depends on mutual trust between the judicial authorities of the Member States.

The case examined by the Court of Cassation, involving the defendant M. M., concerned an arrest warrant issued by the French judicial authority. The first-instance conviction had been appealed but was already enforceable under French procedural law. This scenario presented the Supreme Court with a fundamental question: for the purpose of surrender, is a final and unappealable judgment necessary, or is it sufficient for it to be enforceable?

Enforceability or Finality? The Issue at the Heart of the Ruling

The distinction between an "enforceable" and a "final" judgment is crucial. A judgment is enforceable when it can be put into practice, meaning its legal effects can be implemented, even if it is still subject to appeal. It is final, however, when it can no longer be challenged through ordinary means (appeal, cassation appeal) and has become res judicata. The Italian legal system, for example, attaches particular importance to the finality of a conviction (the "double degree of jurisdiction" and "finality" under Article 27 of the Constitution) before proceeding with the enforcement of the sentence.

The Court of Cassation, with ruling 23117/2025, addressed this delicate issue, carefully examining the European and national regulatory framework. President E. A. and Rapporteur F. D'A. clarified how the interpretation of the EAW must prioritize its purpose of rapid and effective cooperation.

The Principle of Ruling 23117/2025 and its Significance

In the context of a European Arrest Warrant, surrender abroad is lawful when the EAW has been issued based on an enforceable, but not yet final, conviction, as Article 8, paragraph 1, letter c), of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of June 13, 2002, gives relevance only to the "enforceability" and not to the "finality" of the judgment, as an essential condition of the cooperation system aimed at the surrender of wanted persons among the Member States of the European Union. (Case concerning an arrest warrant issued by the French judicial authority based on a first-instance judgment, which was appealed but already enforceable under that State's procedural law).

This principle crystallizes the notion that, within the framework of the European Arrest Warrant, the surrender of a person can occur even if the conviction that forms the basis for it is not yet final, provided it is enforceable in the issuing State's legal system. The Court of Cassation has thus reaffirmed that Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and in particular Article 8, paragraph 1, letter c), requires the "enforceability" of the judgment, not its "finality." This means that Italy, as the executing State, must recognize the validity of an EAW based on a conviction enforceable under the laws of the issuing State, even if such conviction is still subject to appeal. This interpretation aims to prevent procedural differences between Member States from hindering the effectiveness of the EAW, ensuring greater fluidity in judicial cooperation.

Practical Implications and Legal References

The Supreme Court's decision has significant repercussions. For the wanted individual, it means that the mere pendency of an appeal or other ordinary recourse in the issuing State is not, in itself, sufficient to halt the surrender procedure, provided the judgment is already enforceable. This underscores the importance of thoroughly understanding the procedural regulations of the requesting State.

The legal references supporting this interpretation include:

• Law 22/04/2005 no. 69, Article 2, which transposed the EAW into Italian law.
• Council Framework Decision 13/06/2002 no. 584, particularly Articles 1 and 8, which define the conditions for issuing and executing the EAW.
• Articles 13 and 27 of the Italian Constitution, which protect personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until a final conviction. In this context, the Court of Cassation has balanced these principles with the need for international cooperation, interpreting the rules in conformity with Union law.

This ruling aligns with previous case law that has already highlighted the primacy of enforceability over finality in specific EAW contexts, despite some interpretive fluctuations over the years.

Conclusions: A Balance Between Cooperation and Guarantees

Ruling no. 23117 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation, quashing and remanding the decision of the Court of Appeal of Rome, reaffirms the prevalence of the principle of mutual recognition in the context of the European Arrest Warrant. By stating that the "enforceability" of a conviction is sufficient for surrender, even in the absence of "finality," the Supreme Court strengthens the effectiveness of the European instrument, promoting faster and smoother judicial cooperation between Member States. While this ensures greater speed in the application of transnational justice, it also necessitates constant reflection on the need to ensure that the fundamental rights of the individual, such as the right to defense and a fair trial, are fully respected at every stage of the proceedings, both in the issuing and executing States. A delicate but essential balance for the construction of a truly integrated European legal area that respects human rights.