Extradition of Italian Citizens: Ruling 20133/2025 Confirms the Exclusive Role of the Minister of Justice

In the realm of international and constitutional law, extradition represents one of the most complex and delicate instruments available to states to ensure justice and prevent impunity. It is the process by which an individual, accused or convicted of a crime in one country, is handed over by another country to face trial or serve a sentence. The recent Ruling No. 20133, filed on May 29, 2025, by the Court of Cassation (President D. A. G., Rapporteur A. R.) provides a fundamental clarification on a crucial aspect of this procedure: the discretion to refuse the extradition of an Italian citizen.

The Delicate Balance Between Sovereignty and International Cooperation

Italy, like many other states, balances the need to cooperate with the international community in the fight against crime with the protection of its citizens. Our Constitution, in Article 26, establishes cornerstone principles regarding extradition, particularly excluding extradition for political offenses and stipulating that a citizen can only be extradited in cases provided for by international conventions. This fundamental principle has been subject to interpretation and application over the years, delineating the boundaries of competence among the different powers of the state.

Ruling 20133/2025 intervenes precisely in this context, addressing a specific case involving the defendant G. P.M. A. F. and the annulment with referral of a decision by the Court of Appeal of Rome dated February 4, 2025. The Supreme Court's pronouncement unequivocally clarifies who holds the final decision-making power in refusing the extradition of an Italian citizen, especially when the request is based on international treaties, such as the one between Italy and Chile, ratified by Law of November 3, 2016, No. 211.

The Maxim of Ruling 20133/2025: An Unequivocal Principle

The discretion to refuse the extradition of an Italian citizen can be exercised exclusively by the Minister of Justice, as it is a discretionary assessment entrusted to the government body and withdrawn from the deliberation of the judicial authority. (Case concerning extradition requested on the basis of the Treaty between Italy and Chile, ratified by Law of November 3, 2016, No. 211).

This maxim is of extraordinary importance. It reaffirms a principle consolidated in Italian jurisprudence, already expressed in previous consistent rulings (e.g., Ruling No. 43170 of 2014), which assigns an exclusive and irreplaceable role to the Minister of Justice. This means that, even in the presence of all the legal prerequisites for extradition ascertained by the judicial authority, the final decision to grant or deny it, particularly for Italian citizens, rests with a political organ of the Government. This is not a mere formality but an assessment of a discretionary nature, which takes into account not only strictly legal aspects but also considerations of foreign policy, expediency, and, more generally, the interests of the state.

Why is this Distinction Crucial?

• Separation of Powers: The ruling highlights a clear division of roles. The judicial authority (the Court of Appeal, and subsequently the Court of Cassation) verifies the existence of the legal conditions for extradition (e.g., dual criminality, statute of limitations, absence of political offenses). The Minister, on the other hand, exercises a governmental prerogative, assessing the political expediency of the handover.
• Protection of the Citizen: The Minister's discretionary power acts as an additional filter to protect the citizen, allowing for consideration of factors that go beyond the strict application of criminal law, such as the human rights situation in the requesting country, detention conditions, or the existence of latent political motivations.
• International Relations: The ministerial decision can influence diplomatic relations and cooperation with other states, requiring a considered assessment that only a government body can undertake.

The jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation has consistently confirmed this line, as demonstrated by references to previous maxims (e.g., No. 46912 of 2019, No. 3921 of 2016, No. 28032 of 2021), consolidating the principle that the final choice to refuse the extradition of a citizen rests with the executive.

Conclusions: A Clear Boundary Between Powers

Ruling No. 20133/2025 by the Court of Cassation not only reaffirms a fundamental principle of our legal system regarding extradition but also underscores the importance of a clear distinction between the competencies of the judiciary and those of the executive. The extradition of an Italian citizen, while a mechanism aimed at ensuring transnational justice, remains firmly anchored to a decision-making process that culminates in the discretionary assessment of the Minister of Justice. This pronouncement offers legal certainty and reiterates the complexity of a matter that requires careful analysis of all aspects, legal, constitutional, and political, to ensure the full protection of rights and the correct application of international norms.