Federal Supreme Court, 20.08.2026, 7B_303/2026
Facts
A.________, who arrived in Switzerland in 1990, has been the subject of numerous criminal convictions and several judicial expulsion orders. In a judgment dated March 10, 2025, the Geneva Police Court imposed a mandatory 20-year criminal expulsion against him. The individual concerned neither requested the written reasoning for the judgment nor filed an appeal. Yet, he had already invoked his Eritrean origin, his state of health, his drug dependency, and the difficulties he would face in the event of removal. (consid. 2.3, 2.6.2)
In September 2025, he requested that the OCPM reconsider the execution of his expulsion, arguing in particular that his health had deteriorated and that removal to Ethiopia or Eritrea would violate his fundamental rights. He also requested the correction of his nationality in the Symic system. The OCPM and subsequently the Criminal Appeals Chamber rejected his claims. (consid. 2.4.1-2.4.2)
Law
A decision regarding the postponement of the execution of a criminal expulsion underArt. 66d SCC can in principle be subject to a criminal appeal. However, once an expulsion judgment has become final, its res judicata effect prevents the reopening of issues at the execution stage that already existed and could have been raised during the merits proceedings. (consid. 2.2)
The appellant must therefore demonstrate that decisive circumstances have changed since the expulsion judgment and that these changes are likely to lead to a new assessment of proportionality or obstacles to execution. A mere reiteration of previously known facts is insufficient. (consid. 2.2-2.3)
The Federal Supreme Court further clarifies that the previous expulsions ordered against A.________ have been superseded by the 20-year expulsion of March 10, 2025. Only the latter measure remains enforceable. Obstacles based in particular on the principle of non-refoulement,Art. 66d SCC or fundamental rights must be examined by the criminal judge when they are stable and determinable at the time the expulsion is ordered. (consid. 2.4.3-2.6.1)
Application to the specific case
A.________ has not demonstrated any significant changes occurring after the judgment of March 10, 2025. His alleged Eritrean origin and health issues were already known and had been raised before the Police Court. He could have asserted them in an appeal, but he waived that legal remedy. The principle of res judicata therefore prevents him from now challenging the expulsion through enforcement proceedings. (consid. 2.5.2-2.6.5)
Regarding the correction of the Symic, his appeal is also largely inadmissible due to a lack of sufficient reasoning. However, the cantonal court could not deem his appeal manifestly devoid of merit in order to deny legal aid, given the legal questions raised. (consid. 3.1-4.4)
Outcome
The appeal is very partially granted solely regarding cantonal legal aid. For the remainder, particularly concerning the postponement of the expulsion and the Symic, it is dismissed to the extent that it is admissible. (consid. 5)