The ruling no. 44731/2024 and fundamental rights in the European arrest warrant

The recent ruling no. 44731 of December 4, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers significant insights on the topic of the European arrest warrant, emphasizing the respect for fundamental rights and constitutional guarantees. The accused, B. B., was the subject of an extradition request to Belgium, but the Court annulled the delivery decision, referring back to the Court of Appeal to verify the existence of established jurisprudential practices in that country.

The legal context of the European arrest warrant

The European arrest warrant is a judicial cooperation tool among European Union member states, aimed at simplifying and expediting extradition procedures. However, its application must always respect fundamental rights, as established by Article 13 of the Italian Constitution and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The ruling in question highlights the importance of verifying the actual existence of a “living law”, that is, an established jurisprudential interpretation that may limit the guarantees provided by the legislation. In this case, the Court deemed it necessary to ascertain whether, in Belgium, there are jurisprudential practices that exclude non-resident foreign citizens from precautionary measures other than detention in prison.

European arrest warrant - Extradition - Verifications referred to in Article 2 of Law no. 69 of 2005 - Consideration of the so-called "living law" - Conditions - Case. Regarding the European arrest warrant for extradition, the necessary respect for fundamental rights and constitutional guarantees requires verifying, when specifically raised, the actual existence of a "living law", based on an established jurisprudential interpretation, such as to nullify the protections recognized by the abstract legislative provision. (Case in which the Court, annulling the delivery decision, referred to the Court of Appeal to ascertain the existence in Belgium of a consolidated jurisprudential practice that, despite the scheduled mechanism of periodic verifications of the continued necessity of the precautionary measure, would exclude non-resident foreign citizens from access to precautionary measures other than detention in prison, based on a generalized presumption of flight risk, in contrast with Articles 13 of the Constitution, 5 ECHR, and 6 TEU).

The implications of the ruling

This ruling has important practical and legal implications. Firstly, it emphasizes the need for a careful analysis of the conditions under which a foreign citizen may be detained abroad. Furthermore, it highlights how national jurisprudence must always consider the legal practices of other member states to ensure fair and just treatment.

  • Recognition of fundamental rights as an inviolable principle
  • Need for legal verifications on the practices of member states
  • Importance of an established jurisprudential interpretation

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling no. 44731 of 2024 invites us to reflect on the importance of ensuring respect for fundamental rights in the context of the European arrest warrant. The Court of Cassation clarified that it is essential to verify the legal conditions in the requesting country to avoid violations of constitutional guarantees. Italian jurisprudence continues to evolve within a European context, where the respect for human rights must remain at the center of judicial decisions.

Bianucci Law Firm