TF, 03/11/2026, 1C_129/2026
Facts
The Italian Ministry of Justice has requested that Switzerland extradite A.________ to serve a one-year prison sentence. This sentence, which is now final, was handed down by the Turin Court of Appeal for offenses including fraud, aggravated identity theft, and receiving stolen goods.
When questioned in Switzerland, A.________ acknowledged being the person sought but refused the simplified extradition procedure. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) nevertheless granted the extradition on November 28, 2025. A.________ appealed this decision to the Federal Criminal Court (Criminal Appeals Chamber), which dismissed his appeal in a ruling dated February 19, 2026.
A.________ then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting that the previous decisions be overturned and his extradition to Italy be denied.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the admissibility requirements for an appeal concerning international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, as governed byArt. 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA). To be admissible, such an appeal must not only concern an extradition but must also constitute a "particularly important case."
A case is considered particularly important if, among other things, there is reason to believe that fundamental procedural principles have been violated or that the proceedings abroad suffer from serious flaws. This concept is interpreted restrictively to limit access to the Federal Supreme Court in this area. It is the appellant's responsibility to demonstrate in detail why their case is of such importance, failing which the appeal will be deemed inadmissible. The Federal Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining whether this condition is met.
Application to the present case
The appellant puts forward three arguments in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of a "particularly important case":
- Violation of the rules regarding the language of proceedings in Switzerland: The appellant argues that the proceedings before the Federal Criminal Court should have been conducted in German, as the initial stages (hearing, written submissions) had taken place in that language. The Federal Supreme Court rejects this argument. It notes that, in accordance withArt. 33a para. 2 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the language of the appeal proceedings is, in principle, the language of the contested decision. In this instance, the Italian extradition request and the FOJ's decision were in Italian, the appellant's native language, which he speaks fluently. Furthermore, as he was assisted by counsel at all times, the appellant failed to demonstrate any concrete prejudice resulting from the use of Italian. This grievance therefore does not constitute a violation of a fundamental procedural principle.
- Violation of defense rights in the Italian proceedings: The appellant claims that his minimum defense rights were violated in Italy, alleging that he was not properly summoned to the appeal hearings and was therefore unable to attend. The Federal Supreme Court also rejects this grievance. It notes that the appellant was present and assisted by counsel in the first instance, and was represented by his chosen lawyer during the appeal proceedings. Adequate defense within the meaning ofArt. 6 ECHR was therefore ensured. The Court reiterates that refusing extradition due to a foreign procedural defect is only conceivable in exceptional cases of manifest denial of justice, which has not been demonstrated in this case. Any potential procedural irregularities must be raised before the courts of the requesting state—in this case, Italy—which is a party to the ECHR.
- Incompetence of the Italian authority: The appellant criticizes the fact that the response to a request from the FOJ (regarding the potential enforcement of the sentence in Switzerland) was issued by the Public Prosecutor of Turin rather than directly by the Italian Minister of Justice. The Federal Supreme Court deems this argument irrelevant. It reiterates that it is not the role of Swiss authorities to oversee the correct application of foreign procedural law or the internal distribution of powers among foreign authorities, except in cases of manifest abuse. In this instance, the request was correctly addressed to the Italian Ministry, which forwarded it to the competent authority, and the response was relayed back through that same Ministry. This issue is therefore of no particular significance.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that none of the arguments raised by the appellant justify classifying the case as a "particularly important case" within the meaning of Art. 84 LTF. As the conditions for admissibility are not met, the appeal is declared inadmissible. The court costs, amounting to 2,000 francs, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
