TPF, 21.09.2026, RH.2026.9
Facts
On March 18, 2026, Italy requested the extradition of A. for the execution of a four-year and six-month prison sentence for fraudulent bankruptcy (fact A).
Arrested in Switzerland on April 2, 2026, A. was placed in extradition detention (fact B).
Following several denied requests for release, the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (FCC), in a judgment dated July 29, 2026 (RH.2026.7), granted an appeal by A. and remanded the case to the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) to re-examine the possibility of release on bail (fact L).
On July 31, 2026, A. was released after signing a bail agreement (fact M).
In parallel, A. appealed the FOJ's extradition decision.
In a judgment dated September 3, 2026 (RR.2026.97), the Appeals Chamber dismissed this appeal and upheld the extradition decision (fact O).
Following this judgment confirming the extradition, the FOJ immediately ordered the re-incarceration of A. on September 4, 2026 (fact P).
On September 7, 2026, A. (hereinafter: the claimant) appealed this new detention decision to the Appeals Chamber, requesting his release under the terms of the bail already paid (fact Q).
Law
In extradition matters, the detention of the person sought is the rule, and release is the exception (recital 2.1).
Provisional release is subject to stricter conditions than those applicable to pre-trial detention in domestic proceedings (recital 2.1).
Release may be ordered, in particular, if it is likely that the person will not evade extradition (art. 47 para. 1 let. a IMAC).
The assessment of flight risk must be based on rigorous criteria to ensure that Switzerland's commitment to extradite the individual, should the request be granted, is not rendered illusory (recital 2.1).
The Federal Supreme Court’s case law regarding flight risk in the context of extradition is highly restrictive.
Even strong ties to Switzerland (family, employment, residence permit) are generally insufficient to rule out flight risk when the individual faces a long-term custodial sentence abroad (recital 3.3).
Application to the specific case
The claimant argues that the confirmation of extradition by the Appeals Chamber does not constitute a relevant new fact that would justify increasing the flight risk and revoking his release on bail (recital 3.1.1).
The Court rejects this argument.
Like the FOJ, it considers that the situation has changed radically.
Before the judgment of September 3, 2026, extradition was merely a possibility.
Following this judgment confirming it, the prospect of having to serve a lengthy prison sentence in Italy has become very concrete (recital 3.4).
This change significantly increases the risk that the claimant, despite his ties to Switzerland, will attempt to evade justice by fleeing abroad to a country with less stringent extradition relations with Italy (recital 3.4).
Given this increased flight risk, alternative measures (bail, electronic monitoring) are no longer considered sufficient to mitigate it (recital 3.4).
The claimant's re-incarceration is therefore in accordance with the FOJ's consistent practice in such situations and respects the principle of proportionality (recitals 3.4 and 4).
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed (operative part 1).
The FOJ's decision ordering A.'s return to detention is upheld (recital 5).
Legal costs, set at 2,000 CHF, are to be borne by the claimant (operative part 2, recital 6).