Federal Supreme Court, 29.12.2025, 1C_759/2025
Facts
Italy has requested the extradition of an Albanian national from Switzerland to serve a four-year prison sentence for drug-related offenses. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) authorized the extradition. The appellant requested to serve his sentence in Switzerland, but the FOJ determined that a substitute sentence enforcement was not justified, particularly due to a mandatory future expulsion from Swiss territory. The Italian authorities maintained their extradition request. The Federal Criminal Court rejected the appeal filed against the FOJ's decision. The appellant then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Law
According toArt. 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 a particularly important case. Such a case is interpreted restrictively, particularly if there are reasons to believe that fundamental procedural principles have been violated or that the proceedings abroad exhibit serious flaws (Art. 84 para. 2 FSCA). It is the appellant's responsibility to demonstrate how this condition is met. On the merits, the right to respect for private and family life (Art. 13 of the Constitution, Art. 8 ECHR) may be restricted by legitimate criminal prosecution measures. According to case law, the mere fact that a prisoner is incarcerated far from their loved ones, making visits difficult, does not constitute an unlawful interference. Refusing extradition to protect family life is only conceivable under truly exceptional circumstances.
Application to the case
The appellant argues that his extradition would violate his right to family life. He is married, the father of two young children born in 2022 and 2024, and holds a Swiss residence permit. He claims he will be unable to see his family due to his financial situation and the lack of facilities for children in Italian prisons. The Federal Supreme Court finds that the appellant has not demonstrated how his case is particularly important within the meaning of Art. 84 FSCA. The arguments raised do not reveal exceptional family circumstances that would justify, as an exception, refusing extradition. The decision of the lower court is consistent with the established case law of the Federal Supreme Court. Consequently, the admissibility requirement of a particularly important case is not met.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court does not hear the appeal. It waives court costs.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
