TF, 09.23.2026, 1C_492/2026
Facts
On March 18, 2026, Italy requested the extradition of A. to serve a four-year and six-month custodial sentence handed down by the Court of Rome for fraudulent bankruptcy and other offenses. Arrested in Switzerland, the individual opposed his extradition. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) partially granted the extradition, a decision confirmed by the Federal Criminal Court (FCC). A. appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (FSC), alleging irregularities in the Italian criminal proceedings and requesting, in the alternative, the suspension of the extradition proceedings pending a potential execution of the sentence in Switzerland or a recalculation of the sentence in Italy (consid. 2.1).
Law
According to Art. 84 para. 1 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), an appeal in matters of international mutual assistance in criminal matters is only admissible if it concerns, among other things, an extradition and constitutes a particularly important case. Such a situation may arise from a violation of fundamental procedural principles, serious flaws in the foreign proceedings, a legal question of principle, or a departure from established case law. This condition is interpreted restrictively, and its fulfillment must be demonstrated by the appellant in accordance with Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA (consid. 1.2 and 1.3).
Art. 6 of the ECHR only exceptionally precludes extradition in the presence of a flagrant denial of justice in the requesting state. A mere procedural irregularity is insufficient: the infringement of the guarantees of a fair trial must be of particular gravity. Any defects in the foreign proceedings must primarily be raised before the authorities of the requesting state, especially when that state is a party to the ECHR and, in principle, benefits from a presumption of compliance with convention guarantees (consid. 2.2).
Application to the specific case
The appellant argues that his right to a double degree of jurisdiction, guaranteed by Art. 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR, was violated. His appeal against the Italian conviction was declared inadmissible for failure to produce a specific mandate required by temporary procedural regulations. This inadmissibility, confirmed by the Italian Court of Cassation, allegedly deprived him of a review of the merits of his conviction (consid. 2.1).
The FSC notes, however, that the appellant had the assistance of a lawyer and exercised the ordinary legal remedies provided for by Italian law. The lack of a review on the merits on appeal, resulting from the application of the procedural rules in force at the time, does not in itself constitute a flagrant denial of justice. The Swiss mutual assistance judge is not required to review the application of foreign procedural law or the merits of a foreign criminal conviction. The appellant therefore fails to demonstrate any violation sufficiently serious to justify the intervention of the FSC (consid. 2.2).
Regarding the other serious flaws invoked under Art. 2 let. d of the IMAC, the appellant does not establish their irreparable nature, particularly as a revision procedure is pending in Italy. Moreover, this provision is generally not applicable when the European Convention on Extradition governs the proceedings. The claim of a violation of the right to be heard is also dismissed, as the FCC sufficiently reasoned its decision in accordance with Art. 29 para. 2 of the Constitution. Finally, the claims relating to dual criminality and Art. 37 of the IMAC, in connection with Art. 8 of the ECHR, are not sufficiently linked to the requirement of a particularly important case (consid. 2.2).
Outcome
The FSC declares the appeal inadmissible due to the lack of a particularly important case within the meaning of Art. 84 FSCA. It thus confirms the absence of grounds justifying its intervention in the extradition proceedings and orders the appellant to pay the court costs, set at CHF 2,000 (consid. 3).