FPC, 18.11.2025, RH.2025.25, RP.2025.65
Facts
The Italian authorities issued an arrest warrant via the Schengen Information System (SIS) for the extradition of A., a Turkish national residing in Switzerland. He is suspected of aiding illegal entry and residence. Based on this, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) ordered his arrest. During his hearing, A. refused the simplified extradition procedure. The FOJ subsequently issued an extradition detention warrant. A. appealed this warrant to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, requesting his immediate release, or alternatively, the application of substitute measures, as well as the granting of free legal aid.
Legal Principles
Detention of a person being prosecuted for the duration of the extradition procedure is the rule (Art. 47 IMAC). Release is granted only in exceptional cases and under strict conditions. Release may be considered, in particular, if the person being prosecuted is unlikely to evade extradition (Art. 47 para. 1 let. a IMAC), if they can prove their alibi without delay (Art. 47 para. 1 let. b IMAC), or if extradition appears clearly inadmissible (Art. 51 para. 1 IMAC). In the context of an appeal against detention, the court does not examine the merits of the extradition request, but only the legality of the detention. The risk of flight is assessed very restrictively. A potential long-term prison sentence is a significant indicator of this risk, which is generally not mitigated even by the presence of family and social ties in Switzerland. Substitute measures are only considered if they can effectively mitigate the risk of flight, which, according to established case law, generally requires the provision of substantial financial security. Free legal aid is granted if the party lacks the necessary resources and if their claims do not appear to be devoid of any chance of success (Art. 65 para. 1 APA).
Application to the Case
The appellant raised three main arguments to challenge his detention:
- Lack of jurisdiction of the Italian authorities: He argued that since the alleged acts were committed in Switzerland, Swiss jurisdiction applied, making extradition clearly inadmissible. The Court rejected this argument, reiterating that questions of jurisdiction and the merits of the extradition request are not examined at the stage of an appeal against detention. Extradition did not appear, at this stage, to be clearly inadmissible.
- Alibi: The appellant claimed he was in Switzerland at the time of the events and not in Italy. The Court reiterated that it was the appellant's responsibility to prove his alibi "without delay" (Art. 47 para. 1 let. b IMAC), which he failed to do. It is not the role of the Swiss authorities to conduct investigations into this matter within the framework of the detention procedure.
- Absence of risk of flight: The appellant highlighted his ties to Switzerland (recent marriage, residence permit obtained through family reunification) to deny any risk of flight. The Court found that the multi-year prison sentence he faces in Italy creates a significant risk of flight. His recent ties in Switzerland, following the rejection of his asylum application and the order for his removal, are not sufficient to rule out this risk. The proposed substitute measures (reporting obligations, surrender of identity documents) were deemed insufficient in the absence of an offer of substantial financial security.
Regarding the request for free legal aid, the Court ruled that the appeal was clearly devoid of any chance of success, as the arguments raised were contrary to the law and established case law. The request was therefore rejected without examining the appellant's financial situation.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the detention order for extradition. The application for legal aid was also denied. The court costs, set at CHF 2,000, have been charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
