Extradition Hub

🇮🇹 Italy ➡️ 🇲🇩 Moldova // An important judgment concerning extradition, provisional measures and flight risk.

The Court of Appeal may not infer flight risk solely from the seriousness of the offence or the amount of the potential sentence. Rather, such a finding must be based on specific and concrete factors indicating a genuine risk that the sought person may abscond or otherwise avoid the extradition proceedings.

As regards the consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the judges followed the more recent interpretation, according to which the quashing of the detention order for failure to state adequate reasons must result in the immediate release of the sought person (rather than in a reversal and remand). Indeed, remitting the case to the Court of Appeal so that it may provide new grounds and amend the order would result in the continued restriction of the arrested person’s liberty in the absence of a valid legal basis for detention.

Extradition, precautionary measure and assessment on flight risk Translate🇬🇧English🇫🇷French🇩🇪German🇪🇸Spanish🇮🇹Italian🇵🇹PortugueseExtradition, precautionary measure and assessment on flight risk — Extradition case Italy MoldovaOutcome: Decision on precautionary measure — Precautionary Measure — Italian Supreme CourtExtradi...

Italy 🇮🇹 ➡️ Brazil 🇧🇷 // New decision in Zambelli's case: generic medical assurances are insufficient where continuous specialist care is required

Where the requested person suffers from multiple and serious medical conditions, the court must obtain precise and individualised information from the requesting State as to whether the prison facility can ensure continuous medical monitoring, appropriate specialist treatment and the necessary medication. Generic assurances concerning access to hospital care or periodic diplomatic reporting are insufficient.

Zambelli case, extradition and serious health conditions: duty to obtain individualised assurances on medical care Individualised medical assurances are required before extradition where documented illnesses need continuous specialist monitoring and treatment.

🇮🇹 Italy ➡️ 🇦🇹 Austria // Individualised detention inquiries are required only where a real risk is supported by reliable evidence (which is not the case with the Austrian prison system)

✅ If the sought person demonstrates - on the basis of objective, reliable, specific and duly updated evidence - that there is a serious risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the issuing State, the Court of Appeal must conduct a targeted and specific assessment aimed at establishing, through “individualised” information to be requested from the issuing State, the actual conditions of detention to which that person will be subjected, with particular regard to the aspects identified as “critical” by reliable sources.

✅ Accordingly, if no such evidence exists - as in the case of the Austrian prison system, which, according to the most recent report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is not characterised by conditions amounting to that kind of treatment - the Court is under no obligation to seek additional information from the Austrian authorities.

Additional information is required only where reliable evidence discloses a serious risk of inhuman or degrading detention Translate🇬🇧English🇫🇷French🇩🇪German🇪🇸Spanish🇮🇹Italian🇵🇹PortugueseEAW🇮🇹Italy→🇦🇹AustriaGrantedShare this caseCourtItalian Supreme CourtDecision date15/07/2026Decision number26709/2026Main groundArt. 3 ECHRExtradition typeEuropean Arrest Warrant (EAW)Lan...

🇮🇹 Italy ➡️ 🇲🇩 Moldova : pending review proceedings do not affect extradition, since the European Convention on Extradition requires an enforceable conviction and not a final and irrevocable judgment. Likewise, any complaint concerning an aggravating circumstance relates, at most, to the lawfulness of the sentence and must be raised before the Courts of the requesting State.

Individualised detention assurances may exclude an Article 3 risk and an enforceable conviction is sufficient for extradition Translate🇬🇧English🇫🇷French🇩🇪German🇪🇸Spanish🇮🇹Italian🇵🇹PortugueseExtradition🇮🇹Italy→🇲🇩MoldovaGrantedShare this caseCourtItalian Supreme CourtDecision date19/05/2026Decision number27261/2026Main groundArt. 3 ECHRExtradition typeExtraditionLanguageItali...

New case uploaded // 🇧🇸 The Bahamas → 🇨🇭 Switzerland

Extradition bail conditions must remain proportionate to the continuing flight risk

✅ The Supreme Court of The Bahamas held that bail conditions in extradition proceedings are preventive, rather than punitive, and must not be more onerous than reasonably necessary to secure the requested person’s attendance.

✅ Compliance with existing conditions is a relevant factor but does not, in itself, eliminate a continuing flight risk. Courts must reassess proportionality over time and determine whether less restrictive measures can adequately address that risk.

✅ In this case, the Court reduced the reporting frequency and moved the start of the curfew from 8:00 p.m. to midnight, while maintaining electronic monitoring, the bail amount, the surrender of travel documents, and the restriction on leaving New Providence.

Extradition bail conditions partially relaxed while core safeguards remained necessary due to flight risk Translate🇬🇧English🇫🇷French🇩🇪German🇪🇸Spanish🇮🇹Italian🇵🇹PortugueseExtradition🇧🇸Bahamas→🇨🇭SwitzerlandDecision on precautionary measureShare this caseCourtSupreme Court of The BahamasDecision date09/06/2026Decision numberCRI/BAL/00030/2025Main groundPrec...

🇳🇿 New Zealand → 🇺🇸 United States | The Court of Appeal of New Zealand has dismissed Kim Dotcom’s latest challenge to his extradition to the United States.

Case is mentioned here by Internazionale: https://www.internazionale.it/ultime-notizie-reuters/2026/07/01/kim-dotcom-loses-latest-appeal-against-extradition-to-us-from-new-zealand

Extradition to the United States upheld: Court of Appeal rejects Kim Dotcom’s challenge to surrender decision Translate🇬🇧English🇫🇷French🇩🇪German🇪🇸Spanish🇮🇹Italian🇵🇹PortugueseExtradition🇳🇿New Zealand→🇺🇸United StatesGrantedShare this caseCourtCourt of Appeal of New ZealandDecision date01/07/2026Decision number[2026] NZCA 284Main groundHuman rightsExtradition t...

🇮🇹 ➡️ 🇺🇦 ✅ • The risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be inferred solely from the fact that the requesting State is involved in an armed conflict, provided that adequate assurances are given that detention will not take place in territories directly affected by hostilities and that, in any event, appropriate safeguards are offered to protect the requested person’s safety should the conflict expand.

Extradition to Ukraine granted: ongoing armed conflict did not automatically bar surrender of Ukrainian national Translate🇬🇧English🇫🇷French🇩🇪German🇪🇸Spanish🇮🇹Italian🇵🇹PortugueseExtradition🇮🇹Italy→🇺🇦UkraineGrantedShare this caseCourtItalian Supreme CourtDecision date08/04/2026Decision number21653/2026Main groundHuman rightsExtradition typeExtraditionLanguageItal...

🇮🇹 ➡️ 🇧🇷 ❌ • Minister of Justice of the requesting State who was a member of the judicial panel that delivered the conviction and was also the injured party in respect of one of the charged offences: the alleged breach by the requesting State of the principles of judicial independence and impartiality therefore bars surrender, since such guarantees are part of the essential core of the right to a fair trial and of the defendant’s rights of defence, as recognised by the principles of the legal order protected by the Constitution and international principles.

Extradition to Brazil refused for breach of judicial independence and impartiality Translate🇬🇧English🇫🇷French🇩🇪German🇪🇸Spanish🇮🇹Italian🇵🇹PortugueseExtradition🇮🇹Italy→🇧🇷BrazilDeniedShare this caseCourtItalian Supreme CourtDecision date22/05/2026Decision number21634/2026Main groundArt. 6 ECHRExtradition typeExtraditionLanguageItalian...

🇨🇷➡️🇺🇸 // Costa Rica grants extradition of national to the United States: constitutional reform applies to pending proceedings.

✅ In a significant ruling issued on 2 June 2026, the Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal of San José reversed a first-instance decision and granted the extradition of a Costa Rican national to the United States on co***ne trafficking and conspiracy charges.

✅ The central legal issue: can the 2025 constitutional reform — which allows the extradition of Costa Rican nationals in cases of international drug trafficking and terrorism — apply to conduct predating its entry into force?

✅ The Court said yes. Extradition is a procedural mechanism, not a substantive criminal rule. The reform therefore applies immediately to pending proceedings, regardless of when the alleged offences occurred.

✅ The Court also noted that the 1991 bilateral extradition treaty between Costa Rica and the United States had already contemplated the possibility of extraditing nationals; the constitutional reform simply removed the domestic obstacle that previously prevented its application.

➡️ The decision is available here: https://www.extraditionhub.com/case-law/extradition-costa-rican-national-constitutional-reform-united-states-costa-rica-6-2026/

➡️ The first-instance decision (refusing extradition) is available here: https://www.extraditionhub.com/case-law/extradition-nationals-constitutional-reform-retroactivity-costa-rica-united-states-3-2026/

⚖️ New case uploaded: 🇮🇹 ➡️ 🇫🇷 [🇪🇺] ✅

▪️ The information that EAW must contain — including the “degree of participation of the requested person” — is intended to provide the minimum formal information necessary to enable the executing judicial authorities to give effect to the European Arrest Warrant within a short time, by urgently adopting their decision on surrender.

▪️ Therefore, the description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the degree of participation of the requested person, need only be such as to allow the requested State to carry out the checks entrusted to it by law.

▪️ In particular, the statutory reference to the “degree of participation of the requested person” must not be misleading.

▪️ That expression, actually, does not refer to the greater or lesser intensity of the person’s involvement in the criminal matter, but is justified by the fact that, in various European criminal-law systems, criminal association offences and participation by several persons in an offence are governed differently from under Italian law.

▪️ In some cases, on the basis of a qualitative distinction between the various categories of co-offenders, thus treating the perpetrator of the offence and the participants as two different categories; in others, as in common-law countries, by reference to the different type of conduct: preliminary or inchoate offences, incitement, attempt, conspiracy.

▪️ These are aspects which, by contrast, are not relevant in the Italian system, which is based on the principle of "equal liability" of the participants in the offence. Correctly, therefore, the Court of Appeal considered the information set out in the warrant to be sufficient, also with reference to the specific position of the appellant, since it was indisputable, in the description of the facts, that he had provided essential assistance to the material perpetrator of the offence during the ex*****on phase and, therefore, that he had participated in the offence under Italian law.

EAW: “degree of participation” requires only minimum information Translate🇬🇧English🇫🇷French🇩🇪German🇪🇸Spanish🇮🇹Italian🇵🇹PortugueseEAW🇮🇹Italy→🇫🇷FranceGrantedShare this caseCourtItalian Supreme CourtDecision date03/06/2026Decision number20603/2026Main groundEAW formal requirementsExtradition typeEuropean Arrest Warra...