The protection against extradition enjoyed by the nationals of a member state cannot, in principle, be extended to other EU citizens whose extradition is requested of that member state, said Advocate General Yves Bot in an opinion delivered on Tuesday 21 November (case C-191/16).
In 2010, Romano Pisciotti, an Italian national, was arrested by the German federal police at a German airport and extradited to the United States where he had been sentenced to two years in prison and fined $50,000. On the day of his extradition, Pisciotti brought an action in the German courts seeking damages against Germany for authorising his extradition to the United States. He argued that, as an EU citizen, he should have had the right to the same protection as a German, the constitution of that country preventing the authorities from extraditing German citizens.
In his opinion, Advocate General Bot notes that the German constitution effectively creates an inequality of treatment among EU citizens. Basing his argument on European case-law (Petruhhin ruling, case C-182/15), he states that a difference of treatment of this sort involving a restriction on freedom of movement is justified if it is based on objective considerations and is proportionate with the objective pursued by national law of avoiding the possibility of impunity.
The advocate general says that there is no alternative measure to extradition likely to have a lesser effect on free movement while avoiding the possibility of impunity. German law does not allow criminal prosecution to be engaged in Germany against Pisciotti for offences committed in the United States. Furthermore, in line with the requirement introduced by the Petruhhin ruling, Germany had informed Italy of the extradition procedure, it being understood that the Italian authorities had not issued a European arrest warrant following Pisciotti’s arrest.
In conclusion, Germany has not infringed the EU law in any way in this case, said Advocate General Bot. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)