FPC, 19.01.2026, RH.2025.28, RP.2025.87
Facts
Italy has requested that Switzerland arrest and extradite a German national, A., to serve the remainder of a prison sentence of more than three years for facilitating illegal entry. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) ordered his detention pending extradition. A. was arrested and, during his hearing, opposed his extradition. Through his lawyer, A. appealed his detention to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. He requested his immediate release or, alternatively, the application of substitute measures (a security deposit of CHF 10,000, an obligation to report, the surrender of travel documents, and an electronic monitoring bracelet). He also requested free legal aid.
Legal Principles
In extradition matters, the detention of the person sought is the rule throughout the proceedings. Release is granted only in exceptional cases and under strict conditions, particularly in the absence of a flight risk (Art. 47 para. 1 let. a IMAC) or if the extradition appears manifestly inadmissible (Art. 51 para. 1 IMAC). According to consistent and restrictive case law from the Federal Supreme Court, a flight risk is presumed when a significant custodial sentence is to be served, even if the individual has social and professional ties in Switzerland. Substitute measures are only considered if they can effectively mitigate this risk, which generally requires a very substantial security deposit. Free legal aid is granted, according toArt. 65 APA, if the party is indigent and their claims are not devoid of any chance of success.
Application to the Case
The Appeals Chamber found that a concrete flight risk existed in this case. The remaining sentence to be served (more than three years) is significant. The appellant’s personal situation (32 years old, single, no children) and good health are factors that do not allow this risk to be excluded, despite his social and professional integration in Switzerland. The proposed substitute measures were deemed insufficient to neutralize this risk. The security deposit of CHF 10,000 was considered too low. Furthermore, the appellant did not provide details regarding the source of the funds, which prevented an assessment of the measure's deterrent effect. Consequently, the other measures, which are only effective in combination with an adequate security deposit, were also dismissed. The appellant’s grievances regarding potential flaws in the Italian proceedings were not examined, as they pertain to the merits of the extradition decision rather than the legality of the detention, unless the extradition were manifestly inadmissible, which was not found to be the case. Finally, the request for legal aid was rejected. Given the very strict case law in this area, the appeal was devoid of any chance of success from the outset, meaning one of the cumulative conditions of Art. 65 APA was not met.
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber rejected the appeal and confirmed the detention pending extradition. It also rejected the request for legal aid and ordered the appellant to pay the court costs, set at CHF 2,000.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
