European Arrest Warrant and New Grounds in Cassation: Analysis of Judgment No. 32059 of 2025

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) represents a cornerstone of judicial cooperation within the European Union, aimed at simplifying and expediting surrender procedures between Member States. Given its transnational nature and the urgency that often characterizes requests, the EAW is subject to special regulations which, as we will see, also profoundly affect domestic procedural dynamics, particularly before the Supreme Court of Cassation. The recent judgment No. 32059 of 2025, issued by the Sixth Criminal Section of the Cassation Court (President G. D. A., Rapporteur P. D. G.), offers a fundamental clarification on the admissibility limits of 'new grounds' in appeal proceedings.

The European Arrest Warrant: A Tool for Judicial Cooperation

Introduced in Italy with Law of April 22, 2005, No. 69, the EAW replaced traditional extradition between European Union countries, making the surrender of persons sought for the execution of a sentence or for criminal proceedings more streamlined and direct. The philosophy underlying the EAW is that of mutual recognition of judicial decisions, presupposing a high degree of mutual trust between the legal systems of the Member States. However, precisely to ensure the effectiveness and speed of this mechanism, Italian law has provided for a series of derogations from ordinary criminal procedures, which are also reflected in the appeal stages.

Judgment 32059 of 2025 and the Limits of "New Grounds" in Cassation

The core of the issue addressed by the Supreme Court, in the case involving the defendant A. P. S. and the Public Prosecutor F. C., concerns the possibility of submitting new grounds in the Cassation appeal proceedings regarding European Arrest Warrants. The Court of Appeal of Florence, with a decision of 29/08/2025, had rejected the requests, bringing the case before the legitimacy judges. The Cassation Court, with judgment No. 32059 of 2025, reiterated a principle of great importance:

In matters of European arrest warrants, the submission of new grounds in proceedings before the Court of Cassation is not permitted, given that the provisions of art. 22 of Law of April 22, 2005, No. 69, lay down partially derogating regulations compared to ordinary ones regarding the timing of appeal submission and appearance deadlines, based on which only the filing of briefs that do not introduce new and different issues from those raised in the original appeal shall be deemed admissible.

This maxim unequivocally clarifies that, in the context of the EAW, the Cassation appeal procedure does not allow the introduction of arguments or objections that were not already raised in the original appeal. The reason for this limitation lies in art. 22 of Law No. 69/2005, which establishes a peculiar procedural discipline, characterized by extremely stringent deadlines for both the submission of the appeal and the appearance of the parties. This speed is intrinsic to the nature of the EAW, which aims to avoid delays that could compromise the effectiveness of international judicial cooperation.

Unlike ordinary criminal proceedings, where the filing of supplementary briefs is generally permitted to develop or clarify existing grounds (art. 611 c.p.p.), the EAW regulations further restrict this faculty, allowing only briefs that do not introduce 'new and different issues'. This means that the defense must be extremely diligent and thorough from the very first appeal, as there will be no second opportunity to raise new challenges at the legitimacy stage.

Practical Implications and Defense Protections

The Cassation Court's ruling has a significant impact on defense strategy in European Arrest Warrant proceedings. Here are some practical implications:

• Completeness of the initial appeal: It is essential that the Cassation appeal be drafted with the utmost completeness and precision from its initial formulation, including all grounds of appeal intended to be asserted.
• Timeliness of analysis: The accelerated nature of the proceedings requires a thorough and rapid analysis of all possible objections, without relying on subsequent substantial additions.
• Focus on issues already raised: Subsequent briefs can only elaborate on or better illustrate the grounds already presented, without introducing new factual or legal issues.

This approach, while ensuring the speed required by European judicial cooperation, demands even greater preparation and readiness from lawyers to ensure the full protection of the client's rights while respecting procedural specificities.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 32059 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation reiterates a consolidated principle regarding European Arrest Warrants: the special regulations laid down by Law No. 69/2005 impose a derogation from the ordinary rules of Cassation appeals, excluding the admissibility of new grounds. This ruling underscores the importance of careful and scrupulous drafting of the initial appeal, which must contain all necessary elements for the defense. For legal professionals, it is a reminder to consider the specificity and speed of EAW procedures, thereby ensuring an effective defense that adheres to the peculiarities of international and domestic law.