European Arrest Warrant and Italian Conviction: Supreme Court Ruling No. 19696/2025

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is a fundamental instrument in criminal judicial cooperation between EU Member States, aimed at simplifying and speeding up procedures for the surrender of wanted persons for the execution of custodial sentences or security measures. However, the application of this mechanism is not without its complexities, especially when it intersects with pre-existing legal situations in the executing country. A thorny issue, addressed by the Supreme Court of Cassation with Ruling No. 19696, filed on May 27, 2025, concerns the case where the person sought by an EAW has already been definitively convicted in Italy for an offense different from the one forming the basis of the warrant.

The European Arrest Warrant: a pillar of European criminal justice

Introduced by Law No. 69 of April 22, 2005, the EAW revolutionized the concept of extradition, transforming it into a direct "surrender" procedure between judicial authorities, based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions. This system aims to overcome the bureaucratic and political delays typical of traditional extradition, ensuring a faster and more effective response to transnational crime. Law No. 69/2005 governs cases of refusal and postponement of surrender, including Article 24, paragraph 1, which provides for the possibility of postponing surrender when the requested person is serving a sentence or is subject to criminal proceedings in Italy for an offense other than the one specified in the warrant.

Ruling 19696/2025: no automatic postponement of surrender

The ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation No. 19696 of 2025, presided over by D. S. P. and with G. E. A. as rapporteur, addressed the appeal filed in the interest of T. Z., clarifying a crucial aspect in the interpretation of Article 24, paragraph 1, of Law No. 69/2005. The issue concerned the potential automatic postponement of surrender in the presence of an enforceable or irrevocable conviction by an Italian judge for an offense different from the one forming the basis of the EAW. The Court of Appeal of Genoa had already ruled on the matter, and the Supreme Court of Cassation has now provided an authoritative interpretation.

In the context of a European Arrest Warrant, the enforceability or irrevocability of a conviction issued by an Italian judge for an offense other than the one forming the basis of the arrest warrant does not automatically constitute a ground for postponing surrender, as requested by the interested party pursuant to Article 24, paragraph 1, of Law No. 69 of April 22, 2005, but is among the relevant indicators for the discretionary assessments of the Court of Appeal.

This maxim is of fundamental importance. It clarifies that the existence of a definitive conviction in Italy for a different offense does not constitute an automatic impediment to the surrender of the person sought by another Member State. Therefore, there is no predefined block. On the contrary, this circumstance must be considered by the Court of Appeal as one of the "relevant indicators" within an overall discretionary assessment. This means that the Italian judge is called upon to carefully weigh all the elements of the case, balancing the needs of judicial cooperation with the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual and the objectives of domestic justice.

The role of judicial discretion: balancing different interests

The ruling emphasizes the non-binding nature of the Italian conviction as a mere "indicator," granting the Court of Appeal broad discretion. This assessment is not arbitrary but must be conducted in light of established principles and a series of factors. These may include:

• The seriousness of the offenses for which the person has been convicted in Italy and those forming the basis of the EAW.
• The status of sentence execution in Italy (whether already served, currently being served, or yet to begin).
• The possibility of consolidating sentence executions or ensuring the application of the sentence in a single context.
• The fundamental rights of the defendant, including their personal and family situation.
• The need for speed and effectiveness of justice, both at national and European levels.

The decision by President D. S. P. and rapporteur G. E. A. follows a line of case law that, while recognizing the centrality of the EAW, tempers its application with the need for concrete and personalized assessments, in line with the orientation already expressed in previous rulings (such as No. 14788 of 2020 or No. 13994 of 2018).

Conclusions: legal certainty and flexibility in the EAW system

Ruling No. 19696 of 2025 by the Supreme Court of Cassation brings clarity to a crucial point of European judicial cooperation. By reiterating that an Italian conviction for a different offense does not automatically lead to a postponement of surrender but constitutes an element to be assessed discretionarily, the Supreme Court reinforces the principle of flexibility and the case-by-case approach. This approach is essential to ensure that the European Arrest Warrant system functions effectively, without sacrificing the peculiarities of individual situations and the needs of national justice. For those in complex situations involving an EAW and prior judicial proceedings in Italy, the assistance of a lawyer experienced in criminal law and international cooperation is indispensable to navigate the nuances of these discretionary assessments.