TF, 05.01.2026, 1C_768/2025
Facts
The German authorities issued an alert in the Schengen Information System (SIS) for the arrest and extradition of one of their nationals, A., for professional fraud. A. was arrested in the canton of Zurich on November 18, 2025, and placed in extradition detention by the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ).
The FOJ subsequently granted the German authorities a 40-day extension to submit the formal extradition request and ordered detention for the purpose of extradition. A request for release filed by A.________ was rejected by the FOJ, and subsequently by the Federal Criminal Court on appeal. A.________ has filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting his immediate release.
Law
According toArt. 84 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 recognized sparingly, particularly when there are reasons to believe that fundamental procedural principles have been violated or that the proceedings abroad are seriously flawed. The appellant must demonstrate how this condition is met.
Even though decisions regarding extradition detention are incidental decisions subject to appeal (Art. 93 para. 2 FSCA), the condition of a particularly important case under Art. 84 FSCA must also be satisfied.
On the merits,Art. 16 para. 4 of the European Convention on Extradition (ECExtr) provides that provisional detention may be terminated if the extradition request has not been received within 18 days, and that it must in no case exceed 40 days from the date of arrest.
Application to the present case
The appellant solely invokes a violation of Art. 16 para. 4 ECExtr. He argues that the extension of the deadline to 40 days should have been justified by a substantive reason, which was not the case.
The Federal Supreme Court rejects this argument. It reiterates its established case law according to which, unlike Swiss domestic law (Art. 50 para. 1 IMAC), Art. 16 para. 4 ECExtr does not make the extension of the deadline subject to the existence of specific grounds. Consequently, the lower authority was not required to examine the reasons for the extension granted by the FOJ.
Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court clarifies that even failure to comply with the deadline for submitting the formal request would not automatically lead to the release of the person being prosecuted or the refusal of extradition. The person could be re-arrested and extradited on the basis of a late-filed request.
As the appellant has failed to demonstrate why their case is of particular importance within the meaning of Article 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act, the conditions for the admissibility of the appeal are not met.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal and orders the appellant to pay the court costs.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
