FPC, 02.12.2025, RR.2025.117, RP.2025.44
Facts
German authorities issued an alert in the Schengen Information System (SIS) for the arrest and extradition of A., a North Macedonian national, based on an arrest warrant from the Hamburg court for aggravated burglary. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) authorized his extradition. A., who was already detained in Switzerland under an alias for another case, opposed his extradition. He appealed the FOJ's decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. In his appeal, he requested the annulment of the extradition authorization, the dismissal of the German request, and the revocation of the extradition arrest warrant. He also requested the granting of free legal aid. The appellant based his opposition on alleged uncertainty regarding his identity, contradictions between the German national arrest warrant and the European arrest warrant, and a violation of his right to be heard.
Law
The Appeals Chamber recalls the legal framework governing extradition between Switzerland and Germany, in particular the European Convention on Extradition (ECE) and its protocols, bilateral agreements, and the Schengen acquis. National law, specifically the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC), applies subsidiarily. The court also sets out the conditions for granting free legal aid according toArt. 65 of the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (APA). A party is exempt from procedural costs if they do not have the necessary means and if their claims do not appear to be doomed to failure from the outset. An appeal is considered to have no chance of success when the prospects of winning are significantly lower than the risks of losing.
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber examines and rejects all of the appellant's arguments in turn.
- Identity of the person sought: The court finds that there is no doubt that the appellant is indeed the person sought. Contrary to his claims, he explicitly confirmed his identity during his first hearing. Furthermore, checks conducted by fedpol, based on biometric data and a SIRENE note, unequivocally confirm his identification. The fact that he stated he had not used his official name for twenty years does not constitute a valid challenge to his identity.
- Violation of the right to be heard: The appellant complains that he did not have access to the fedpol SIRENE note. The court rejects this grievance, as this document was produced by the FOJ with its response to the appeal. The appellant received the list of documents and could have requested to consult this document, which he did not do. There is therefore no violation of his right to be heard.
- Contradiction between arrest warrants: The appellant alleges a contradiction between the German national arrest warrant, which mentions a DNA match, and the European arrest warrant, which indicates that the DNA profile is "unknown." The court deems this argument unfounded, explaining that it is a misinterpretation. The mention in the European arrest warrant refers to a section on the availability of identification data (photo, fingerprints, DNA profile) for transmission, not to evidence of the crime. The European arrest warrant does not have to include all the evidence from the national warrant.
- Free legal aid: The request for legal aid is rejected. The court considers that the arguments raised were manifestly unfounded and contrary to the documents in the file. The appeal was therefore doomed to failure from the outset.
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber dismisses the appeal. It also rejects the request for free legal aid and charges the legal costs, set at CHF 3,000, to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
