Commentary on Judgment No. 32379 of 2024: European Arrest Warrant and Judicial Authority's Discretion

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 32379 of 2024 offers important insights into the topic of the European Arrest Warrant. This instrument, aimed at cooperation between European Union Member States, presents challenges related to the application of justice principles and the protection of individual rights. In particular, the Court has expressed its views on the judicial authority's discretion in interpreting an optional ground for refusal, highlighting how the decision to proceed or not in cases of offenses committed wholly or partly on national territory must be carefully evaluated.

Regulatory Context and the Judgment

According to Article 18-bis, letter b), of Law No. 69 of April 22, 2005, the judicial authority has the option to refuse the execution of a European Arrest Warrant if the offense was committed, in whole or in part, on national territory. This entails an assessment of the State's interest in exercising criminal prosecution. In the judgment under review, the Court established that the decision rests with the judicial authority, which is not required to justify its actions in terms of procedural defects.

European Arrest Warrant - Commission of the offense wholly or partly within the territory of the State - Optional ground for refusal - Art. 18-bis, letter b), Law of April 22, 2005, No. 69 - State's interest in exercising criminal prosecution - Judicial authority's discretion - Protectable subjective legal situation - Exclusion - Reasons. Regarding the European Arrest Warrant, the choice on the optional ground for refusal represented by the commission of the offense wholly or partly within the territory of the State, as per Art. 18-bis, letter b), Law of April 22, 2005, No. 69, is left to the judicial authority responsible for assessing the State's interest in exercising criminal prosecution against the subject of the arrest warrant, who, in the legitimacy phase, cannot allege any defect in the decision as they do not possess any protectable subjective legal situation in jurisdictional proceedings.

Discretion and Subjective Legal Situation

A crucial aspect of the judgment concerns the discretion of the judicial authority. According to the Court, the recipient of a European Arrest Warrant does not have a protectable subjective legal situation in jurisdictional proceedings, which implies that they cannot challenge the decision not to refuse extradition. This raises important questions about the balance between the State's interest and the protection of individual rights.

• Discretion is fundamental to ensuring that decisions are tailored to the specific circumstances of each case.
• The lack of a protectable legal situation limits the recourse options for the interested party.
• The role of the judicial authority is crucial in ensuring that the public interest is always considered.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 32379 of 2024 represents an important reflection on the application of the European Arrest Warrant. It clarifies that the assessment of the State's interest in exercising criminal prosecution remains the prerogative of the judicial authority, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach between the demands of justice and the safeguarding of individual rights. It is essential that legal professionals and citizens are informed about these dynamics, as they directly influence confidence in the legal system and cooperation between European Union Member States.