21/05/2026
🇮🇹 ➡️ 🇩🇪 ✅ // Alleged lack of jurisdiction of the national Public Prosecutor in favour of EPPO and relevance of an instalment agreement for tax debt repayment in relation to the requirement of double criminality.
▪️ the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) under Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 is concurrent rather than exclusive with respect to national judicial authorities; accordingly, the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the ordinary Public Prosecutor of the issuing State in favour of EPPO does not constitute a ground for refusal of surrender by the executing State;
▪️ the alleged failure to comply with rules governing the allocation of powers between the ordinary public prosecutor and EPPO, not only does not amount to a breach of a rule protecting a principle of public policy under the Italian legal system, but also falls entirely outside the scope of review of the executing State and, in particular, of the Italian Supreme Court, which has no jurisdiction to determine issues concerning the allocation of competence between foreign prosecuting authorities;
▪️ with regard to the assessment of the seriousness of the evidence and the merits of the charge, generic defence arguments seeking to prompt reviews falling outside the scope of the executing judicial authority - such as verification of the constituent elements of the offence, the existence of an instalment agreement with the German tax authorities or the severity of the penalty provided for under German law - are irrelevant;
▪️ for this reason, no relevance was correctly attributed to the agreement concluded between the requested person and the German Tax Authorities concerning repayment by instalments of the substantial VAT debt accumulated by the company concerned. Although such an agreement could, in abstract terms, have an impact on the requirement of double criminality (which is, moreover, mitigated within the framework of the EAW system), the material attached to the EAW showed that no actual instalment plan was in force, since the agreed payments were “not sufficient to sustainably reduce the VAT debt”, nor were there any prospects of extinguishment in light of the company’s bankruptcy. Accordingly, the alleged ground for non-punishability or extinction of the offence under Italian law could not be regarded as established and, in any event, such assessment falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the issuing State rather than that of the executing judicial authority;
▪️ as regards differences in sentencing regimes, neither the failure to meet the Italian thresholds of punishability nor the greater severity of the penalties provided for by the issuing State constitutes a bar to surrender, save in cases of manifest disproportionality incompatible with fundamental constitutional principles.
Translate🇬🇧English🇫🇷French🇩🇪German🇪🇸Spanish🇮🇹Italian🇵🇹PortugueseEAW🇮🇹Italy→🇩🇪GermanyGrantedShare this caseCourtItalian Supreme CourtDecision date19/05/2026Decision number18123/2026Main groundOptional grounds for refusalExtradition typeEuropean Arrest...
![🇮🇹 ➡️ 🇦🇹 [🇪🇺] ✅ • Notion of “issuing judicial authority” and health conditions as ground for refusal.](https://img5.lawfirms1.com/069/022/122108128430690229.jpg)
![Welcome to Jorge Agüero Lafora and María Hernández Loures [FukuroLegal] as new contributors from 🇪🇸Our network of contri...](https://img5.lawfirms1.com/069/022/122107643930690229.jpg)
![New case uploaded ⚖️🇮🇹 ➡️ 🇭🇷 [🇪🇺] • Requests for the ex*****on of a EAW concerning offences committed before 7 August 20...](https://img4.lawfirms1.com/269/022/122107365962690229.jpg)
