FPC, 16.12.2025, RR.2025.121, RR.2025.107, RP.2025.48
Facts
Germany has requested that Switzerland arrest and extradite a Ukrainian national (hereinafter: the appellant) residing in Switzerland. He is suspected of having declared his willingness to commit aggravated arson and cause an explosion, as well as acting as an agent for sabotage purposes on behalf of Russian state entities.
According to the extradition request, the appellant allegedly agreed to participate in attacks in Germany targeting the transport of goods to Ukraine. In preparation, he allegedly organized the shipment of test packages containing GPS trackers via accomplices in order to study delivery routes for future shipments of packages containing explosive or incendiary devices.
Arrested in Switzerland, the appellant opposed his extradition, citing the political nature of the alleged offenses. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) authorized the extradition, subject to the Federal Criminal Court's (FPC) decision on the political offense exception. The appellant filed an appeal against the FOJ's decision with the FPC.
Law
Extradition between Switzerland and Germany is primarily governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECE) and the Swiss Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC).
Extradition is only granted if the alleged facts are punishable in both states (principle of dual criminality) and if the maximum penalty incurred reaches a certain threshold (generally one year under the ECE). The requested authority is bound by the statement of facts provided by the requesting state, except in cases of manifest errors, omissions, or contradictions. It does not rule on guilt or on the foreign legal classification.
Extradition is refused if the offense is considered by the requested state to be a political offense (art. 3 ECE ; art. 3 IMAC). Case law distinguishes between absolute political offenses (directed against the organization of the state) and relative political offenses (common law offenses committed in a context and with a primarily political goal, as part of a struggle for power). However, this exception is excluded for particularly reprehensible acts, such as acts of terrorism.
Free legal aid is granted if the applicant is indigent and if their claims are not devoid of any chance of success.
Application to the specific case
The appellant challenged the extradition on several grounds. First, he argued that the German request was too vague regarding the location and date of the events. The FPC rejected this argument, ruling that the description was sufficiently precise to allow for the examination of extradition conditions, as the ECE does not require absolute precision.
Second, the appellant denied dual criminality, claiming that his actions (handing over a backpack containing GPS transmitters, sending car parts and GPS trackers, and the alleged monitoring of these transmitters) did not constitute punishable preparatory acts under Swiss law (art. 260bis SCC). The Federal Criminal Court (FCC) held that, based on the facts presented, the appellant's actions were not isolated incidents but rather planned technical and organizational measures forming part of a criminal scheme to prepare for attacks. The requirement of dual criminality regarding preparatory acts for arson was therefore met.
Third, the appellant raised the political offense exception, arguing that the events were part of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and that the German prosecution was politically motivated. The FCC rejected this exception. The alleged acts were not aimed at Germany's political organization, nor were they part of a struggle for power within that country. They therefore constituted neither an absolute nor a relative political offense. Furthermore, the FCC reiterated that the political offense exception is excluded for particularly serious acts comparable to terrorism, such as the preparation of explosive attacks.
Finally, the requests for compensation for detention and for free legal aid were rejected; the former was deemed inadmissible at this stage, and the latter was denied because the appeal was manifestly unfounded and therefore lacked any prospect of success.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court rejected both the political offense exception and the appeal. It upheld the FOJ's decision authorizing the appellant's extradition to Germany. The appellant was ordered to pay the court costs.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
