FPC, 22.12.2025, RR.2025.138, RP.2025.56
Facts
The Romanian authorities have requested the extradition of A. for the purpose of serving a remaining sentence of one year, five months, and six days for complicity in aggravated theft. Arrested in Switzerland, A. was placed in extradition detention and opposed the simplified procedure. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) requested and obtained additional information from the Romanian authorities regarding the criminal proceedings, as well as diplomatic assurances concerning A.'s fundamental rights. On August 15, 2025, the FOJ granted the extradition. A. (the appellant) filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, primarily seeking the refusal of extradition and his immediate release. He alleges a violation of his right to be heard, his right to a fair trial in Romania, and detention conditions contrary to Art. 3 ECHR.
Law
The Court reiterates the legal basis governing extradition between Switzerland and Romania, primarily the European Convention on Extradition (ECExtr) and the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC).
- Right to be heard (Art. 29 Cst.): This right guarantees that a party may explain their position, produce evidence, and obtain a reasoned decision. The authority is not required to address every argument but must set out the essential grounds for its decision. It may refuse to admit evidence based on an anticipatory assessment.
- Fair trial and trial in absentia (Art. 6 ECHR, Art. 3 AP II ECExtr): Extradition may be refused if the minimum rights of the defense were not respected in the foreign proceedings. However, if the person voluntarily chose not to appear or was represented by counsel, their rights are in principle safeguarded. The principle of good faith presumes that information provided by the requesting state is accurate, absent manifest proof to the contrary.
- Detention conditions and diplomatic assurances (Art. 3 ECHR, Art. 2 IMAC): Extradition is excluded if there is a serious and objective risk that the person will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. When dealing with countries where there is a risk of human rights violations (such as Romania regarding its prison conditions), Switzerland makes extradition conditional upon obtaining specific diplomatic assurances. The reliability of these assurances is assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, in particular, their precision, the commitment of the requesting state, and the implementation of a monitoring mechanism (monitoring by the Swiss diplomatic representation).
Application to the specific case
The Complaints Chamber rejects all of the appellant's grievances:
- Violation of the right to be heard: The Court finds that the FOJ provided sufficient reasoning for its decision. It took into account the documents submitted by the appellant regarding Romanian prisons in their entirety and correctly handled his request to serve his sentence in Switzerland. The refusal to hear witnesses constitutes an admissible anticipatory assessment of evidence.
- Violation of the right to a fair trial: The appellant was present and assisted by a court-appointed lawyer during his appeal trial in Romania. He even supported his lawyer's submissions. His allegations that he was unable to prepare his defense or did not "validly" receive the judgment are deemed unfounded and too vague. The Court relies on the information provided by Romania, in the absence of concrete evidence calling the good faith of that State into question.
- Violation of Art. 3 ECHR: The Court acknowledges the problematic prison situation in Romania. It is precisely for this reason that Switzerland has systematically required diplomatic guarantees since 2019. In this case, Romania provided the required guarantees, ensuring, among other things, respect for the appellant's physical and mental integrity, access to medical care, and an unconditional right of access for Swiss diplomatic representation. The Court deems these guarantees reliable and sufficient to rule out a concrete and personal risk to the appellant. The documents he submitted confirm the relevance of this system of guarantees.
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed. The FOJ's decision to grant A.'s extradition to Romania is upheld. The ancillary requests for release and legal aid are also dismissed, as the appeal is deemed doomed to failure from the outset. The costs of the proceedings are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
