EAW rejected for ne bis in idem and national jurisdiction – Milan Court of Appeal

With its judgment of 13 May 2015, the Milan Court of Appeal rejected the request for the surrender of an Italian citizen, arrested in execution of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by the French judicial authority (Vienne Court). The alleged crimes, dating back to 2005, included material forgery, use of a forged document, working conditions detrimental to the dignity of others, and endangering the lives of others.

THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REJECTION: PRIORITY OF NATIONAL RES JUDICATA

The central point of the decision lies in the finding that, for the same historical facts, the interested party had already been subjected to criminal proceedings in Italy, which concluded with a final judgment. The Court therefore applied art. 18, letter m), of Law no. 69/2005, which expressly prohibits surrender when a situation of ne bis in idem (the prohibition of being judged twice for the same act) arises.

As highlighted by the Milanese judges:

The accused has already been definitively judged in Italy for the same facts covered by the EAW issued by the French Authority. The further foreign procedure would conflict with the principle of ne bis in idem, protecting national res judicata and the fundamental rights of the individual.

THE RELEVANCE OF NE BIS IN IDEM IN EUROPEAN COOPERATION

The judgment aligns with the consolidated jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The national judge has the duty to refuse surrender when there is a substantial identity of facts already defined in Italy, regardless of how these are legally qualified abroad. Ne bis in idem fully operates also in cross-border proceedings, constituting an essential pillar of the system of guarantees in the European area of freedom, security, and justice.

THE VALUE OF TECHNICAL DEFENSE AND THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS

This ruling assumes profound systemic value as it guarantees legal certainty and the stability of domestic judgments, preventing persecutory duplications by other foreign legal systems.

Decisive was the role of the defense, represented by Avv. Roberto A. Catanzariti, who was able to demonstrate precisely and rigorously the perfect historical-factual overlap between the trial held in Italy and the charges pending in France. An evidentiary activity that led the Court to block the extradition, in full compliance with constitutional principles and European Union directives.