The judgment of the Criminal Court of Cassation, sez. 4, filed on 10 April 2025, n. 14191, concerning the execution of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), reaffirms a key point of the system, namely that, in the presence of credible signs of inhuman or degrading prison conditions in the executing State cannot simply grant extradition without further verification.

The decision concerns the case of A.A., a Hungarian national, for whom extradition to Hungary was ordered to serve a final sentence. The defence raised a crucial objection: the conditions in Hungarian prisons, citing reports from the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and other information produced by international organisations that highlighted serious problems. This is nothing new; often, the conditions of detention in some European countries have been subject to complaints and convictions by bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The Cassazione, overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal of Messina, has reiterated that even after the innovations introduced in 2021 in the law introducing the MAE in Italy (l, 69/2005), when there are "reliable and substantiated sources" (such as reports from NGOs, European bodies or judgments of the European Court of Human Rights - ECHR) indicating risks of inhuman or degrading treatment, the state which has to execute the EAW has an "obligation to request additional information".

But this is not generic information. The Supreme Court has specified that requests must cover:

• The concrete conditions of the detention facility in which the person will be detained.
• Specific cell details (size, number of inmates per cell, toilets, access to natural light).
• The availability of medical care and the possibility of contact with the outside.
• Any other information that can ensure that the detention does not violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment).

At the heart of the ruling is the need to offer citizens an "individualised guarantee". This means that the judicial authority of the executing State cannot simply assume that the requesting State complies with European standards. It must obtain concrete and individual-specific reassurance, based on recent data relevant to the particular detention situation that awaits it.

The Court of Cassation has recognized that "if the prison problems are known and official, because they result from open sources internationally accredited (such as convictions of the ECHR; Reports to the UN and other international bodies) it is the responsibility of the Court of the executing State to request integration of information to the issuing State to specify in concrete what will be the penitentiary treatment reserved for the requested person (in which prison, and what are the conditions of crowding or solutions adopted for other reported problems by the CPT of the Council of Europe)".

Only if this additional information is satisfactory and dissipates the "real risk" of inhuman treatment can extradition proceed. If not, the EAW execution decision must be rejected.

This ruling confirms an interpretation that both the Italian Court of Cassation and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had developed in the years 2015-16, but on which the reforms made on Law 69/2021 had raised some doubts. 

The indication from the Court of Cassation should lead to an increased exchange of information between Member States and a greater focus on prison conditions across Europe.