EAW: Italy compensates Unjust Detention Compensation in the Executing State

Mr. B was unlawfully detained due to multiple judicial errors by the Italian authorities in the execution of a conviction in absentia. His detention duration has been of 81 days, and particularly:

? From 04.11.2022 to 01.12.2022 – Held in Romania under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by Italy.

? From 01.12.2022 to 23.01.2023 – Detained in Italy following his extradition, serving a sentence based on an erroneous conviction.

After surrender, his release was ordered by the Trieste Court on 23.01.2023, recognizing the procedural violations that led to his unlawful imprisonment.

On Jan 2025 Mr B was granted with approx. 20.000 euros compensation for his unlawful detention both in Romania as executing state and Italy.

Legal Basis for Compensation

1. Judicial Errors Leading to Unjust Detention

The primary error was the unlawful revocation of the suspension of his sentence, based on an incorrect interpretation of sentencing limits under Article 163 of the Italian Penal Code. The incorrect assumption that Mr. B exceeded the maximum sentence threshold led to the execution of a prison sentence that should not have been enforced.

Since the EAW was executed based on false information (i.e., the accused was unaware of his trial), the resulting detention qualifies as “unjust” under both Italian and European law.

The EAW issued by Italy was based on false notifications, as he was never properly informed of the original conviction.

2. Recognition of Unjust Detention Under Italian and European Law

Article 314 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) establishes the right to compensation for wrongful detention. The 1996 Constitutional Court ruling (No. 310/1996) expanded this right to errors in the execution phase of a sentence, recognizing that a wrongful enforcement order can constitute unjust detention.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence (e.g., Messina v. Italy, Del Rio Prada v. Spain) confirms that states must compensate for detention resulting from procedural errors. Article 5(5) ECHR guarantees compensation for unlawful detention, applying even when caused by incorrect execution of a judicial decision.

3. Compensation for Detention in the Executing State (Romania) Due to Italy’s EAW

Italian law does not explicitly regulate compensation for detention suffered in another country due to an Italian EAW.

However, Article 33 of Italian Law No. 69/2005 (EAW Implementation Law) states that custody in the executing state should be treated similarly to pre-trial detention in Italy for procedural and sentencing purposes.

The Constitutional Court (Decision No. 231/2004) confirmed that compensation applies even in extradition cases, ensuring equal treatment for unjust detention in Italy and abroad.

Under EU law, the mutual recognition principle requires states to ensure fair trials and procedural safeguards when issuing EAWs (L.M. case, C-216/18 PPU).

? Conclusion: Given that Italy’s judicial errors directly caused his arrest and detention in Romania, compensation should be awarded for the entire period of 81 days, including the time spent in Romania under the EAW.

Legal Assessment

The wrongful detention of Mr. B resulted from procedural violations by the Italian judiciary, including an erroneous execution order, invalid notifications, and an unjustified EAW.

Italy is responsible for compensating all detention suffered due to these errors, including time spent in Romania under the EAW.

The case raises fundamental due process and human rights concerns regarding unjust detention in the executing state(Romania) due to an erroneous European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by Italy.

The legal reasoning for compensating such detention is based on the following principles:

?-> Article 5(5) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) establishes the right to compensation for unlawful detention. The individual’s detention in Romania was a direct consequence of an invalid EAW issued by Italy. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled in cases like Messina v. Italy and Del Rio Prada v. Spain that errors in sentencing and extradition procedures justify state liability for wrongful detention

?-> Under the EAW Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, executing states (e.g., Romania) must comply with procedural safeguards, ensuring that the surrender request is valid and lawful.

?-> The wrongful issuance of the EAW by Italy led to detention without legal basis, violating the mutual recognition principle when fundamental rights are at stake (L.M. case, C-216/18 PPU).

Since Italy’s judicial errors directly caused the arrest and detention in Romania, Italy remains responsible for compensating the individual under international law.

Compensation for Foreign Detention Due to Domestic Errors

Article 33 of Italian Law No. 69/2005 (EAW Implementation Law) treats detention under an EAW as equivalent to pre-trial detention in Italy for all procedural guarantees. The ECtHR has confirmed that detention abroad due to an unlawful extradition request remains attributable to the issuing state (Babar Ahmad and Others v. UK). If a state issues an EAW based on an invalid sentence, and detention follows in another jurisdiction, the issuing state (Italy) must compensate the detained person.

Conclusion

The case reinforces state liability in cross-border judicial cooperation and underscores the importance of a proactive defense in extradition proceedings.

(AI supported)