Federal Supreme Court, 24.11.2025, 1C_685/2025
Facts
The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) has granted the extradition to France of a Franco-Cameroonian national, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for illegally operating a business and hiring employees under false pretenses. The individual filed an appeal with the Federal Criminal Court (FCC), raising the objection of a political offense. The Appeals Chamber of the FCC rejected both the objection and the appeal, finding that France, as a party to the ECHR, was capable of guaranteeing detention and medical conditions in compliance withArt. 3 ECHR. The convicted individual then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Principles
According toArt. 84 para. 1 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), a public law appeal against an FCC judgment in an extradition matter is only admissible if it concerns a "particularly important case." This is notably the case when there are reasons to assume that the proceedings abroad violate fundamental principles or involve other serious defects. It is the appellant's responsibility to demonstrate that these conditions are met. According to established case law, there is a presumption that States party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), such as France, respect the fundamental guarantees provided therein (notably Art. 3 and Art. 6 ECHR). This presumption can only be overturned by concrete and indisputable evidence.
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the case can be classified as a particularly important case within the meaning of Art. 84 FSCA.
First, the appellant claims a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Art. 3 ECHR, citing detention conditions in France as well as past experiences. The Federal Supreme Court dismisses this claim, reiterating that there is a presumption that ECHR member states, including France, respect the guarantees derived from the Convention. Despite difficulties related to prison overcrowding, France is deemed capable of taking the necessary measures to ensure detention conditions that comply with Art. 3 ECHR. Furthermore, the past events cited by the appellant demonstrate that he received appropriate medical care, including hospitalizations, which cannot be characterized as inhuman or degrading treatment.
Second, the appellant claims a violation of his right to a fair trial under Art. 6 ECHR. The Federal Supreme Court finds that the alleged, unsubstantiated irregularities regarding previous proceedings are insufficient to justify a refusal of extradition. Regarding the ongoing proceedings, the appellant will have full access to his defense rights in France and will be able to utilize domestic legal remedies. The presumption that France respects procedural guarantees is therefore not overturned, due to a lack of concrete and indisputable evidence.
The Federal Supreme Court therefore concludes that the appellant has not established the existence of a particularly important case within the meaning of Art. 84 FSCA, as his allegations are not of a nature to suggest a risk of violation of his fundamental rights.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible. The court costs are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
