FPC, 07.29.2026, RH.2026.7
Facts
On March 18, 2026, Italy requested that Switzerland extradite A. to serve a four-year and six-month prison sentence handed down by the Court of Rome for fraudulent bankruptcy and other offenses. On April 2, 2026, A. was arrested in Ticino based on an extradition arrest warrant issued by the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ). During his interrogation, he opposed simplified extradition. (consid. A, B)
On April 8, 2026, A. requested his release subject to substitute measures. The FOJ proposed a release agreement in exchange for a bail of CHF 500,000, but this was not finalized, as A. neither signed the agreement nor paid the sum. His subsequent requests for release, including the use of an electronic monitoring bracelet, were rejected by the FOJ. On June 24, 2026, the FOJ granted the extradition of A. for some of the charges. A. then expressed his intention to appeal this decision. (consid. C, D, E, F, G, H)
On June 30, 2026, A. again requested his release. The FOJ rejected this request in a decision dated July 8, 2026. A. filed an appeal against this latest decision with the Federal Criminal Court, seeking his immediate release subject to various substitute measures, including the payment of a CHF 300,000 bail. The FOJ requested that the appeal be dismissed. (consid. I, J, K, L, M)
Law
The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court has jurisdiction to rule on appeals against extradition arrest warrants. The applicable legal framework is primarily the European Convention on Extradition (ECExt) and its protocols, supplemented by the Schengen agreements. For matters not covered by international law, or where domestic law is more favorable (principle of favor), the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) applies. (consid. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4)
According to established case law, in extradition matters, the detention of the person being prosecuted is the rule and release is the exception. The conditions for release are stricter than for pre-trial detention under domestic law. Release may be ordered, in particular, if it is likely that the person will not evade extradition and will not compromise the criminal investigation (Art. 47 para. 1 let. a IMAC), if extradition appears manifestly inadmissible (Art. 51 para. 1 IMAC) or if other grounds justify it (Art. 47 para. 2 IMAC). The assessment of the conditions justifying release must be rigorous so as not to render Switzerland's commitment to surrender the requested person illusory. (consid. 2.1)
The ECExt provides for the possibility of provisional release on the condition that the requested State takes all measures deemed necessary to prevent the individual from fleeing (Art. 16 para. 4 ECExt). Otherwise, the national law of the requested State governs detention and its lifting. (consid. 2.2)
Application to the specific case
The appellant argues that the FOJ's refusal is contradictory and arbitrary, as the office itself had initially considered release on bail. He points to his very strong ties to Switzerland (C permit, residency since 2016, family, professional activity), which he claims would make a flight risk implausible. (consid. 3.1)
The FOJ justifies its change of position by the progress of the proceedings: since the extradition decision has been rendered, the probability of surrender to Italy has become concrete, thereby increasing the risk of flight. The FOJ also mentions a pending criminal proceeding against the appellant in Ticino. (consid. 3.2)
The Court reiterates its highly restrictive case law regarding flight risk in extradition detention, which has often led to the denial of release even when strong family and professional ties exist in Switzerland. However, exceptions have been made in specific cases where alternative measures (high bail, electronic monitoring) were deemed sufficient to mitigate a low flight risk. (consid. 3.3, 3.4, 3.5)
In this case, the Court notes that the appellant has undeniable family and professional ties to Switzerland, which explains why the FOJ had initially considered release on bail. The Court finds that the FOJ has not provided a sufficient or convincing justification for its radical change in assessment. The mere fact that the extradition decision has been issued is not enough to rule out the possibility of mitigating flight risk through alternative measures. The argument regarding the Ticino criminal proceedings is dismissed as a purely unsubstantiated hypothesis. (consid. 3.5)
The Court concludes that the FOJ's grounds for refusing to adopt alternative measures to detention are insufficient. It finds that the flight risk can be mitigated by a combination of measures, including a substantial bail and electronic monitoring. (consid. 3.6)
Outcome
The appeal is granted and the FOJ's decision of July 8, 2026, is set aside. The case is remanded to the FOJ with instructions to submit a new release agreement to the appellant. This must include a bail of CHF 500,000 (the Court seeing no reason to reduce it), the other measures already proposed, and the application of an electronic monitoring bracelet. The appellant's detention is maintained in the interim. No costs are charged, and the appellant is awarded CHF 2,000 in legal fees, to be paid by the FOJ. (consid. 3.6, 5 and operative part 1, 2, 3, 4)
