FPC, 04.23.2026, RH.2026.4, RP.2026.16
Facts
French authorities requested the arrest for extradition of A., who was sentenced on July 10, 2025, by the Paris Criminal Court to five years in prison and a 700,000 euro fine for various economic offenses (fraud, bankruptcy, money laundering, etc.).
As the individual resides in Switzerland, a formal extradition request was submitted to the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) on January 20, 2026, based on the conviction and a European arrest warrant.
On March 10, 2026, the FOJ issued an arrest warrant for the purpose of extradition. A. was arrested on March 19, 2026, and opposed the extradition, arguing that he had appealed the French judgment and that he no longer held French nationality, but rather Luxembourgish nationality.
Despite confirmation of the appeal by French authorities, they maintained their extradition request.
On March 30, 2026, A. appealed the FOJ’s arrest warrant to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (FPC), requesting his immediate release.
Law
Extradition procedures between Switzerland and France are governed by a set of legal instruments, notably the European Convention on Extradition (ECExtr) and its protocols, the bilateral agreement on simplified procedure, and the provisions of the Schengen acquis. Subsidiarity applies to the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
The Appeals Chamber of the FPC has jurisdiction to rule on appeals against arrest warrants for the purpose of extradition (art. 37 para. 2 let. a no. 1 LOAP in conjunction withart. 48 para. 2 IMAC).
According to established case law, detention for the purpose of extradition is the rule, and release is the exception (BGE 136 IV 20 consid. 2.2 2-22). The conditions for release are stricter than those for domestic pre-trial detention.
Detention is intended, in particular, to prevent a flight risk, which is assessed restrictively. Release is only granted in rare cases, for example, when the individual has very strong family and professional ties in Switzerland (BGE 136 IV 20 consid. 2.3 2-22).
Extradition may be refused if it is clearly inadmissible, particularly if the proceedings abroad violate fundamental principles guaranteed by the ECHR or the UN Covenant II (Art. 2 let. a IRS).
Application to the specific case
The appeal was filed within the statutory time limit and is therefore admissible.
The appellant contests the validity of the arrest warrant, claiming he did not evade justice. The Federal Criminal Court (FCC) reiterates that it is not its role to verify the compliance of procedural acts with foreign law, except in cases of manifest abuse of rights. In this instance, the issuance of an arrest warrant by France on the very day of the conviction, followed by a European arrest warrant, demonstrates the clear intention of the French authorities to prosecute the appellant.
The FCC notes a significant risk of flight. The heavy sentence faced, combined with the fact that the appellant has acquired Luxembourgish nationality (which the French authorities appeared to be unaware of), creates a risk that he might flee to Luxembourg to complicate his extradition.
The appellant also argues that the appeal he filed against his conviction renders it unenforceable. The FCC rejects this argument, clarifying that this grievance concerns the merits of the extradition request and not the legality of the detention. The request remains valid as an extradition request "for prosecution" for the purposes of the appeal proceedings, and the French arrest warrant constitutes a sufficient basis for detention.
Finally, the appellant's request for legal aid is rejected, as his claims are deemed doomed to failure from the outset in light of well-established case law.
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court dismisses the appeal.
It confirms the validity of the arrest warrant issued by the FOJ and the continued detention of the appellant.
The fact that an appeal is pending in France does not preclude detention, and the risk of flight is deemed sufficient to justify this measure.
The procedural costs, set at 2,000 CHF, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
