International Arrest Warrant and "Bis in Idem": The Court of Cassation Clarifies Limits with Ruling No. 32241 of 2025

In the complex landscape of international judicial cooperation, the Supreme Court of Cassation is called upon to resolve crucial issues touching upon fundamental legal principles. A significant example is the recent ruling No. 32241, filed on September 29, 2025, which addressed a matter of great importance: the application of the "bis in idem" principle in relation to an International Arrest Warrant (IAW) issued by the United Kingdom post-Brexit. This ruling offers important clarifications on jurisdictional relations with foreign authorities and individual guarantees, especially when an accused person evades a precautionary measure already ordered in another State.

Post-Brexit Judicial Cooperation: The Role of the Partnership Agreement

The United Kingdom's exit from the European Union has reshaped the framework of legal relations, including criminal law cooperation. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is no longer applicable, but the Partnership Agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom (December 24, 2020), particularly Articles 600 and 601, has established new modalities for the surrender of persons. The Court of Cassation's ruling falls precisely within this context, examining the case of Mr. K. D. K., the subject of a British IAW. The peculiarity was that a precautionary measure had already been ordered in Poland under the same warrant, but the accused had evaded it, necessitating a new application in Italy.

The "Bis in Idem" Principle and the Clarification by the Court of Cassation

The "bis in idem" principle, enshrined in international norms such as Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, aims to prevent a person from being tried or punished twice for the same offense. In the context of an IAW, the issue becomes complex when the same arrest order is executed in different states or at different times.

The Supreme Court, with ruling No. 32241/2025 (Pres. D. A. G., Rapporteur T. F.), rejected the appeal, affirming a fundamental principle:

The application in Italy of a precautionary measure for the execution of an international arrest warrant issued, based on the Partnership Agreement signed on December 24, 2020, by the United Kingdom, for criminal proceedings pending before its judicial authorities, does not constitute a violation of the prohibition of "bis in idem," in cases where, under the same warrant, a precautionary measure has already been ordered by another State – in this instance, Poland – but the recipient has "in the meantime" evaded it, given that, despite two execution orders for the same arrest warrant, the appellant is subject to a single criminal proceeding in the issuing State.

This pronouncement is of crucial importance. The Court clarified that the prohibition of "bis in idem" refers to the uniqueness of the criminal proceeding and the final conviction for the same act, not to the uniqueness of the precautionary measures adopted to ensure the execution of a single arrest warrant. Although Mr. K. D. K. was subjected to a precautionary measure in Poland and then in Italy, both derived from the same and single British IAW. Evasion of the first measure legitimized a new activation of judicial cooperation, without this constituting double jeopardy for the same offense. The rationale is to ensure that the criminal proceeding in the requesting State can reach its conclusion, preventing the accused from evading justice. The ruling aligns with previous orientations of the Court of Cassation (such as Ruling No. 34466 of 2021) which distinguish between the act of criminal prosecution and the measures aimed at ensuring its effectiveness.

Practical Implications and Key Points

The Supreme Court's decision offers food for thought for legal practitioners and citizens involved in transnational proceedings:

• Uniqueness of Proceedings: "Bis in idem" protects against being tried twice for the same offense, not from being subjected to different precautionary measures to ensure the execution of a single proceeding.
• Relevance of Evasion: Flight or evasion of a precautionary measure in one State legitimizes the application of a new measure in another State that receives the same IAW.
• Continuity of Cooperation: The ruling reaffirms the effectiveness of international judicial cooperation, even in the post-Brexit context, thanks to the EU-UK Partnership Agreement.

Conclusions: Balance Between Transnational Justice and Guarantees

Ruling No. 32241 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important piece in Italian jurisprudence on international jurisdictional relations. By emphasizing the distinction between the uniqueness of the criminal proceeding and the plurality of possible precautionary measures necessary for its execution, the Court has provided a clear and pragmatic interpretation. This decision strengthens the ability of States to cooperate effectively in the fight against transnational crime, while ensuring that fundamental principles such as "bis in idem" are interpreted correctly, without becoming loopholes to evade justice. For those facing an international arrest warrant, understanding these mechanisms is crucial, and the assistance of a lawyer experienced in international criminal law becomes indispensable.