Bulletin (June 2026)
- Redazione
- Jul 15
- 7 min read
The most relevant decisions on extradition and the European arrest warrant
EAW, detention conditions and the risk of impunity: the Court of Justice in Rugu and Aucroix
The Court of Justice returned to the relationship between the European arrest warrant, detention conditions and fundamental rights.
The cases concerned two EAWs issued for the enforcement of custodial sentences, respectively by Romania and Greece, against persons residing in Belgium. The Belgian courts had refused surrender because detention in the issuing Member States would expose the requested persons to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.
The question before the Court, however, was not whether surrender could be refused. After Aranyosi and Caldararu, that is familiar ground. The real question was what the executing State must do after refusing surrender.
According to the Court, refusal of surrender is no longer the end of the matter. The executing State must actively seek to avoid impunity by requesting the issuing State to transmit the judgment and certificate under Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, so that the sentence may be recognised and enforced in the executing State.
The formula is likely to matter in practice: no surrender to detention conditions incompatible with Article 4 of the Charter, but no automatic non-enforcement of the sentence either.
A comment to the judgment is hosted on eXtradando.
Issuing States: Romania and Greece
Executing State: Belgium
Outcome: preliminary ruling: the executing State must take steps to seek domestic enforcement of the sentence
________________________________________________________________________________
Extradition to Brazil and detention conditions: generic references to the Brazilian prison system are not enough
The Court of Cassation confirmed a more selective approach to detention conditions in Brazil.
The case concerned a Brazilian extradition request for aggravated sexual violence against a minor. The defence argued that extradition would expose the requested person to inhuman or degrading treatment, relying on general concerns about the Brazilian prison system.
The Court held that the risk cannot be based on generic allegations, press articles or non-individualised reports. The defence must identify objective, precise, reliable and up-to-date material capable of showing a concrete risk for the requested person. In the absence of such material, the Court of Appeal is not required to seek supplementary information from the requesting State.
The decision is also interesting in light of the Zambelli case: Brazil is no longer treated, in itself, as a detention context automatically preventing extradition. Prison conditions must be challenged in a specific and individualised way.
Requesting State: Brazil
Requested State: Italy
Outcome: confirmation of extradition
________________________________________________________________________________
Brazil, fair trial and judicial impartiality: the Court of Cassation blocks Carla Zambelli’s extradition
The Court of Cassation refused Brazil’s extradition request against Carla Zambelli, a former Brazilian federal deputy close to Jair Bolsonaro and an Italian citizen by descent.
Brazil sought her extradition to enforce a ten-year prison sentence for unauthorised access to a computer system and ideological falsehood, in connection with the hacking of the electronic system of Brazil’s National Council of Justice.
The Rome Court of Appeal had authorised surrender, subject to assurances concerning the place of detention, consular monitoring and health conditions. The Court of Cassation took a different view and annulled the decision without remand, holding that the conditions for extradition were not met owing to the lack of objective impartiality of the judge.
A comment to the judgment is available on eXtradando.
Requesting State: Brazil
Requested State: Italy
Outcome: dismissal of extradition request
________________________________________________________________________________
EAW, social rehabilitation and the six-month threshold: the sentence may still be enforced in Italy
The Court of Cassation addressed the relationship between an EAW issued for enforcement purposes, the optional ground for refusal based on stable integration in Italy, and the recognition of the foreign judgment.
The case concerned an EAW issued by Romania for the enforcement of a sentence. The Court of Appeal had acknowledged that the requested person was stably rooted in Italy and that Romania had agreed to enforcement of the sentence in Italy. However, it considered that enforcement was barred because, once the part of the sentence relating to offences capable of justifying surrender was separated (the remainder was excluded due to lack of dual criminality), the remaining sentence was less than six months.
The Court of Cassation annulled the decision.
The six-month threshold applicable to the recognition of foreign judgments cannot be interpreted in a way that deprives the optional ground for refusal under Article 4(6) of the EAW Framework Decision and Article 18-bis of Law no. 69/2005 of its practical effect, especially where the issuing State has agreed to enforcement in Italy.
This means that the mechanism for recognising the foreign judgment cannot become a formal obstacle to the social rehabilitation purpose underlying refusal of surrender.
Requesting State: Romania
Requested State: Italy
Outcome: annulment of the decision granting surrender
________________________________________________________________________________
Extradition to Ukraine, armed conflict and subsidiary protection: no automatic bar to surrender
The Court of Cassation confirmed extradition to Ukraine in a case concerning alleged aggravated embezzlement, banking fraud and forgery.
The defence relied on several grounds: the alleged weakness of the evidentiary basis, the risk of violence in detention, the general security situation caused by the war, and the fact that Poland had previously granted the requested person subsidiary protection.
The Court rejected those arguments. Under the European Convention on Extradition, the Italian judge is not required to carry out a full review of serious indications of guilt, but only to verify whether the documents submitted by the requesting State are capable of supporting the request in the logic of that legal system.
As to the war in Ukraine, the Court refused an automatic approach. The existence of an armed conflict does not, by itself, bar extradition. What matters is whether the person will be detained in areas directly affected by hostilities and whether the requesting State has provided concrete guarantees. On the information available, the identified detention facilities were far from the frontline and equipped with protective measures.
The Court also distinguished subsidiary protection from refugee status. The CJEU case law requiring an exchange of information with the Member State that granted refugee status did not apply automatically where only subsidiary protection had been granted.
Requesting State: Ukraine
Requested State: Italy
Outcome: extradition granted
________________________________________________________________________________
Bosnia and Herzegovina, non-refoulement and detention conditions: extradition granted with conditions
The Court of Cassation confirmed extradition to Bosnia and Herzegovina in a case concerning an Afghan national accused of homicide.
The Court of Appeal of Cagliari had authorised extradition subject to two conditions: the requested person should not be detained in the territory of Republika Srpska, and Bosnia and Herzegovina should provide an assurance that he would not be returned or removed to Afghanistan.
The defence relied on the applicant’s vulnerability as an Afghan citizen, on concerns raised by the Council of Europe anti-torture body, and on the subsidiary protection granted to him in Italy. The Court held that the reported detention concerns did not show a generalised risk in the concrete case and that the condition excluding detention in Republika Srpska addressed the relevant concern.
On non-refoulement, the Court accepted the conditional approach adopted by the Court of Appeal. The protection decision was relevant, but it did not automatically bind the extradition judge. What mattered was whether, in the specific case, the risk of onward removal to Afghanistan was adequately excluded. And in this case, the Supreme Court held it was.
Requesting State: Bosnia-Herzegovina
Requested State: Italy
Outcome: extradition granted
________________________________________________________________________________
US extradition, conspiracy and detention conditions: the Court requires individualised information
The Court of Cassation dealt with a US extradition request concerning alleged conspiracy to launder money, linked to cyber-enabled fraud and extortion committed against victims in the United States.
Most of the defence objections were rejected. Inter alia, the Court held that a subsequent indictment may integrate or replace the original extradition title, provided the cause of the request remains the same and the defence is able to address it. It also rejected the complaints based on untranslated diplomatic notes, US jurisdiction, double criminality, the evidentiary basis and the alleged disproportionality of a possible sentence of up to twenty years.
The important point, however, concerned detention conditions in the United States. The defence had submitted specific material from qualified sources, including information on prison standards and personal space in US facilities. The Court held that, where such material indicates a general risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, the Court of Appeal must obtain detailed, current and individualised information on the detention conditions to which the person will be subjected after surrender.
The case is useful because it confirms that US extradition requests are not immune from an Article 3 ECHR review of detention conditions.
Requesting State: the United States of America
Requested State: Italy
Outcome: annulment with remand on detention conditions
________________________________________________________________________________
Brazil refuses extradition to Turkey: Brazilian citizenship and generic terrorism allegations
Turkey sought the extradition of a naturalised Brazilian citizen accused of belonging to FETO/PDY. The Federal Supreme Court refused extradition for two reasons.
The first was nationality. The requested person had acquired Brazilian citizenship before the date indicated as the commission of the offence. In the absence of one of the constitutional exceptions, the Brazilian Constitution therefore prevented extradition.
The second was the lack of specificity of the accusation. The Turkish allegations were considered too generic: links to cultural and educational activities, alleged use of ByLock, banking transactions and proximity to the FETO/PDY network, without a clear description of the person’s role, hierarchy or concrete contribution.
The decision confirms a cautious approach by Brazil in Turkish requests linked to the Gulen movement where the allegations are not sufficiently individualised.
Requesting State: Turkey
Requested State: Brazil
Outcome: extradition refused
Comments