FPC, 18.12.2025, RR.2025.140, RP.2025.60
Facts
The Romanian authorities requested the arrest and extradition of the appellant, a Romanian national, for the purpose of serving an eight-year and four-month prison sentence. This sentence, confirmed on appeal, was handed down for attempted murder, disturbing the public peace, and obstructing the determination of unfitness to drive. Arrested in the canton of Zurich on July 1, 2025, the appellant opposed a simplified extradition procedure. On August 28, 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) authorized his extradition to Romania. The appellant filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court.
Law
In an extradition proceeding, the mutual assistance judge is bound by the statement of facts set out in the requesting state's application, unless it is marred by manifest errors, omissions, or contradictions. The judge is not required to examine the guilt of the person being prosecuted or to conduct their own assessment of the evidence. In accordance withArt. 2 of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC), an extradition request is refused if there are reasons to believe that the proceedings abroad violate the fundamental principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). For an extradition to be refused on the grounds of a violation ofArt. 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial), it is not sufficient to allege isolated procedural defects. The appellant must demonstrate that it is plausible that the foreign proceedings as a whole failed to respect minimum guarantees. Regarding detention conditions in Romania (Art. 3 ECHR), Swiss case law, due to proven systemic problems, requires the requesting state to provide specific diplomatic assurances ensuring that the extradited person will be held in conditions compliant with the ECHR.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Criminal Court (FCC) rejects the appellant's arguments contesting his guilt, reiterating that extradition proceedings are not intended to re-examine the merits of a final foreign judgment. Regarding the alleged violation of Art. 6 ECHR, the FCC finds that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the Romanian proceedings as a whole violated the minimum guarantees of a fair trial. The documents show that he was assisted by a lawyer of his choosing in both the first and second instances, that his defense was able to present evidence, and that the decisions of the Romanian courts were reasoned. General allegations of corruption are unsubstantiated. Regarding the risk of treatment contrary to Art. 3 ECHR due to detention conditions, the FCC notes that the Romanian authorities provided the diplomatic assurances required by case law. These assurances are deemed sufficient to rule out a real and serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court dismisses the appeal and confirms the extradition decision of the Federal Office of Justice. Consequently, the request for release is also rejected. The request for free legal aid is denied, as the appeal was considered to have no chance of success from the outset. The legal costs are charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
