European Arrest Warrant: Analysis of Judgment No. 27654 of 2024

Judgment No. 27654 of July 9, 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria, represents an important step in Italian jurisprudence concerning the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). In particular, the decision clarifies the procedures for handling surrender requests and grounds for refusal, emphasizing the limits of the powers of the judicial authorities involved.

Regulatory and Legal Context

The European Arrest Warrant is a tool provided for by European Union law that allows for the arrest and surrender of an individual between Member States for the prosecution of criminal offenses. Article 18-bis of Law No. 69 of 2005 establishes the grounds for refusal of surrender, while Legislative Decree No. 29 of 2016 governs the concentration of parallel proceedings. The judgment in question emphasizes that these issues cannot be raised simultaneously in the same procedural phase.

• Optional refusal of surrender under Article 18-bis, paragraph 1, letter b).
• Pending parallel proceedings and their regulation.
• Powers of judicial authorities and concentration mechanisms.

Analysis of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal, in assessing the case of D. O., declared inadmissible the request to consider simultaneously the grounds for refusal and the pendency of parallel proceedings. This approach highlights the need to maintain a clear distinction between different legal issues, in order to avoid confusion and overlaps in the assessment.

European Arrest Warrant - Optional ground for refusal of surrender under Article 18-bis, Law No. 69 of 2005 - Procedure for the concentration of parallel proceedings under Legislative Decree No. 29 of 2016 - Admissibility of the issue concerning the pendency of a "parallel" proceeding in the surrender proceeding - Exclusion - Authority responsible for examining such issue - Identification.

In essence, the Court ruled that the assessment of the existence of the ground for refusal must remain the exclusive competence of the "competent judicial authority." This means that issues relating to parallel proceedings must be dealt with separately, within the relevant domestic proceedings.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 27654 of 2024 offers important guidance on the management of European Arrest Warrants in Italy. The clarity of the powers of the authorities involved not only improves the efficiency of proceedings but also protects the rights of the interested parties, avoiding overlaps and conflicts of jurisdiction. It is crucial for legal professionals and citizens to understand these dynamics to best navigate the complex European legal landscape.