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

The 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 methods for handling extradition 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 an instrument provided by European Union law that allows for the arrest and extradition of an individual between member states for the prosecution of crimes. Article 18-bis of Law No. 69 of 2005 establishes the grounds for refusal of extradition, while Legislative Decree No. 29 of 2016 regulates the concentration of parallel proceedings. The judgment in question highlights that such issues cannot be raised simultaneously in the same procedural phase.

  • Optional refusal of extradition according to Article 18-bis, paragraph 1, letter b).
  • Pending parallel proceedings and their regulation.
  • Jurisdiction of the judicial authorities and concentration mechanisms.

Analysis of the Judgment

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

European arrest warrant - Optional ground for refusal of extradition under Article 18-bis, Law No. 69 of 2005 - Procedure for the concentration of parallel proceedings under Legislative Decree No. 29 of 2016 - Deductibility of the issue regarding the pendency of a “parallel” proceeding in the extradition proceeding - Exclusion - Authority responsible for examining such issue - Identification.

Essentially, the Court established that the assessment of the existence of the ground for refusal must remain the exclusive competence of the "proceeding judicial authority." This means that issues related to parallel proceedings must be dealt with separately, within the relevant domestic proceeding.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 27654 of 2024 offers important insights into the management of European Arrest Warrants in Italy. The clarity of the competencies of the authorities involved not only improves the efficiency of proceedings but also protects the rights of those affected, avoiding overlaps and conflicts of jurisdiction. It is essential for legal practitioners and citizens to understand these dynamics in order to navigate the complex European legal landscape effectively.

Bianucci Law Firm