European Arrest Warrant and Health Protection: Cassation Court 24100/2025 Sets Limits on Surrender

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is a key instrument for judicial cooperation within the EU, but it must be balanced with the protection of fundamental rights. The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 24100 of June 16, 2025, intervenes in this balance, reaffirming the importance of safeguarding the health of the requested person and setting a clear limit on the execution of the EAW.

When the Requested Person's Health Halts the EAW

The ruling arose from the case of P. P.M. G. R., for whom an EAW had been issued. The Court of Appeal of Bari, as the executing judge, had to assess whether serious health conditions could justify refusing surrender. Law no. 69 of April 22, 2005, which implements Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, provides grounds for refusal. Jurisprudence, in line with Article 32 of the Italian Constitution and Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, has strengthened the protection of human rights, including health, as a limit to judicial cooperation.

The Cassation Court's Ruling: An Indispensable Principle

The Court of Cassation, with judgment 24100/2025, provided essential clarification, affirming a principle that protects individuals from automatic surrender in the presence of concrete health risks. Here is the ruling in full:

In matters of European arrest warrants, the Court of Appeal, acting as the executing judge, may refuse surrender by an order appealable to the Court of Cassation pursuant to art. 22 of Law no. 69 of April 22, 2005, if, following the decision ordering it, serious and proven grounds emerge to believe that surrender would expose the requested person to a real risk of a significant reduction in their life expectancy or a rapid and irreversible deterioration of their health.

This ruling is crucial. It is not about a general malaise, but a "real," "serious," and "proven" risk that surrender could lead to a "significant reduction in life expectancy" or a "rapid and irreversible deterioration" of health conditions. The executing judge must rigorously ascertain the gravity of the situation from a medical-legal perspective. The possibility of appeal to the Court of Cassation, pursuant to art. 22 of Law 69/2005, highlights the sensitivity and the need for judicial review.

The Judge's Role and the Protection of Rights

The judgment strengthens the role of the Court of Appeal as the "executing judge," tasked with balancing judicial cooperation and fundamental rights. This translates into:

• Rigorous ascertainment of serious and proven grounds regarding the health status.
• Assessment of the concrete risk of irreversible or fatal deterioration.
• Decisions based on objective and documented evidence, often medico-legal.
• The possibility of refusing surrender even after an initial decision, should new health circumstances emerge.

This approach aligns with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasize respect for fundamental rights, including health and the prohibition of inhuman treatment.

Conclusions: The Essential Balance in Transnational Justice

The Cassation Court's judgment no. 24100 of 2025 is a landmark decision in the European Arrest Warrant system. It clarifies that international judicial cooperation cannot sacrifice an individual's dignity and health. The possibility of refusing surrender in the presence of real and serious risks to life or physical integrity serves as a bulwark for fundamental rights, confirming that the legal system is attentive to safeguarding the most precious human values.