FPC, 17.12.2025, RH.2025.26, RP.2025.84
Facts
Spain has issued a SIS alert for A. for the purpose of enforcing an 8-year and 6-month prison sentence for sexual assault involving penetration. A. was arrested in Switzerland on November 20, 2025. During his hearing, he opposed simplified extradition. On November 21, 2025, the FOJ issued an arrest warrant for the purpose of extradition.
Through his lawyer, A. appealed this arrest warrant to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. He primarily requested his immediate release and, alternatively, his release subject to substitute measures (daily reporting to the police, surrender of his passport, electronic monitoring). He also requested the granting of legal aid.
Legal Analysis
Detention for the purpose of extradition is the rule, and release is the exception (Art. 47 et seq. IMAC). Case law is very restrictive and subjects release to stricter requirements than those for pre-trial detention in domestic proceedings. Release can only be considered in exceptional cases, particularly if extradition is manifestly inadmissible or if there is no risk of flight.
In the context of an appeal against an extradition arrest warrant, the Appeals Chamber only examines the legality of the detention and not the merits of the extradition request. Arguments relating to the substance of the request (e.g., violation of fundamental rights in the requesting state) must be raised in the main extradition proceedings.
Substitute measures for detention are assessed very restrictively. They are only ordered if they can effectively mitigate the risk of flight, which is rarely the case in the absence of close and lasting ties to Switzerland and sufficient financial guarantees.
The granting of legal aid (Art. 65 APA) is subject to two cumulative conditions: the applicant's indigence and that the claims do not appear doomed to failure from the outset.
Application to the specific case
The Court rejected all of the appellant's arguments. Firstly, the grievances concerning alleged inaccuracies in the European Arrest Warrant and the risk of harm to his physical integrity in Spain pertain to the substantive extradition proceedings and cannot justify release at this stage. Extradition is not deemed "manifestly inadmissible."
Secondly, the Court found that the risk of flight was significant. The heavy sentence to be served, the appellant's recent and precarious ties to Switzerland (having arrived in 2021, with a difficult financial situation), and his family ties in Spain constitute a strong incentive to evade extradition.
Thirdly, the argument that Spain had not provided "special reasons" for extending the deadline for submitting the formal request was dismissed. The ECExtr, which takes precedence over Swiss law (IMAC), does not require such grounds for an extension of up to 40 days.
Fourthly, the proposed substitute measures were deemed insufficient to mitigate the high risk of flight, especially since no financial security was offered.
Finally, the request for legal aid was rejected. Although the appellant's indigence appears to be established, his claims were devoid of any chance of success in light of the consistent and restrictive case law regarding extradition detention.
Issue
The Federal Criminal Court dismissed the appeal. The request for release and the application for legal aid were also denied. The court costs, reduced to CHF 200 due to the appellant's financial situation, were charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
