Art. 4 Legge federale del 20 marzo 1981 sull'assistenza internazionale in materia penale (AIMP) - Casi irrilevanti

RR.2025.4 (art. 4 EIMP)

Federal Criminal Court Upholds Extradition Order for Fugitive

Cited as the general provision governing extradition matters not covered by international conventions.

RR.2024.51 (Art. 4 IRSG)

Extradition Upheld: Offense Covered, Human Rights Protected

Cited in the context of potentially refusing extradition if the remaining sentence is too short.

RR.2023.53 (Art. 4 IRSG)

Federal Criminal Court Dismisses Extradition Appeal to Kosovo

Cited by the appellant as a reason to refuse extradition in a minor case, but dismissed by the court.

RR.2022.21 (Art. 4 IRSG)

Appeal Dismissed: Disclosure of Bank Records for Polish Money Laundering Probe Upheld

Cited as a potential ground for refusal of legal assistance if the importance of the offense does not warrant it, though it was deemed not applicable in this case.

RR.2011.114 (Art. 4 AIMP)

Extradition to Romania Upheld Despite Due Process and Sentencing Concerns

Cited as a ground for refusing a request if the offense's importance does not justify the proceedings.

RR.2011.84 (art. 4 AIMP)

Extradition for Romanian Driving Offenses Upheld

Used to assess whether the importance of the offense justified the proceeding.

RR.2010.81 (Art. 4 EIMP)

Extradition to France Upheld: Double Criminality and Specialty Principles Satisfied

This provision is discussed and ultimately deemed inapplicable because the case falls under the scope of Art. 2 CEExtr.

RR.2010.2 (art. 4 EIMP)

Extradition to France upheld despite age and health arguments.

This provision, related to the principle of proportionality and 'de minimis non curat praetor', allows for the rejection of an extradition request if the importance of the facts does not justify the procedure, though it is limited in application when the CEExtr applies.

RR.2009.169 (Art. 4 AIMP)

Montenegro Extradition for Counterfeiting Approved Amid Political Persecution Claim

This article states that an extradition request will be rejected if the importance of the offense does not justify the proceedings.

RR.2009.236 (Art. 4 IRSG)

Extradition to Latvia for Theft Upheld

Argued by the appellant as a ground to refuse extradition due to a 'minor case', but deemed inapplicable due to the priority of the EAUe and the seriousness of the offenses under the EAUe.

TPF 2011 89 (Art. 4 AIMP)

Extradition of Minor for Assault Allowed Despite Juvenile Law Concerns

The provision is cited to determine if the case is irrelevant based on the significance of the penalties that can be imposed.