FPC, 08.04.2026, RR.2025.155, RR.2025.182, RP.2025.80
Facts
Slovenia has requested the extradition of A. from Switzerland for fraud and money laundering offenses. A. is accused of having, with an accomplice, set up a fraudulent investment scheme between 2006 and 2011, promising high and guaranteed returns. They allegedly collected over 1.7 million euros from investors, only to use these funds for personal purposes. To conceal the origin and use of the funds, they reportedly used a complex network of sham contracts, shell companies, and bank accounts in several countries, including Switzerland. (Facts, let. A)
Arrested in Switzerland based on an arrest warrant from the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ), A. opposed his extradition. He notably cited an attempted poisoning during a previous detention in Slovenia, death threats received by mail, and argued that the Slovenian criminal proceedings were politically motivated. The FOJ conducted investigations, questioning the Slovenian authorities, who disputed the poisoning allegations. (Facts, let. B, C)
On October 23, 2025, the FOJ authorized the extradition of A. to Slovenia. In accordance with current practice, the FOJ simultaneously referred the matter to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (FCC) to rule at first instance on the political offense exception raised by A. Subsequently, A. also filed an appeal with the FCC against the FOJ's extradition decision. The FCC joined the two proceedings. (Facts, let. E, F; consid. 1)
Law
The FCC first recalls the legal framework applicable to extradition between Switzerland and Slovenia, which primarily includes the European Convention on Extradition (ECExtr) and, subsidiarily, the Swiss Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC). The protection of human rights remains reserved in all circumstances. (consid. 2.1, 2.2)
The Court then details the regime of the political offense exception. Extradition is refused if the offense is considered political (art. 3 para. 1 ECExtr ; art. 3 para. 1 IMAC) or if the request is actually intended to persecute a person for political reasons (art. 3 para. 2 ECExtr; art. 2 let. b IMAC). Case law distinguishes three categories:
- Purely political offenses: These directly target the political organization of the State (e.g., high treason) and must not be mixed with common law offenses.
- Relatively political offenses: These are common law offenses which, due to their motive, purpose, and circumstances, take on a predominant political character, typically in the context of a struggle for power.
- Disguised political persecution: The extradition request for a common law offense is merely a pretext to prosecute a person for their political opinions. The person being prosecuted must credibly demonstrate the existence of serious and objective risks of discrimination. (consid. 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)
The judgment then proceeds to a significant re-examination of the procedure provided for in theArt. 55 para. 2 IMAC. Previously, the practice was for the FOJ, as soon as a political offense exception was raised, to systematically refer this issue to the FCPC for a first-instance decision, while ruling on the remainder of the extradition itself. The FCPC notes that this two-track practice is cumbersome, slow, and inefficient, particularly with regard to the principle of expedition. Furthermore, legal developments have brought the examination of political offenses closer to that of compliance with human rights, for which the FOJ is already competent at first instance. (consid. 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.3)
Based on a new teleological, systematic, and historical interpretation of Art. 55 para. 2 IMAC, the FCPC is changing its jurisprudence. It establishes a new procedural practice:
- Principle: The FOJ shall rule on the political offense exception itself in its extradition decision when it is not raised plausibly or when the investigation does not reveal "serious reasons" to believe the act is political in nature. The FOJ's decision may then be subject to a single appeal before the FCPC.
- Exception: The FOJ shall only refer the matter to the FCPC for a first-instance decision in cases where it believes there are "serious reasons" that could lead to the admission of the exception (e.g., complex cases involving political dissidents). The goal is to reserve direct referral to the court for cases that are truly politically sensitive, in accordance with the legislator's original intent. (consid. 9, 10.1, 10.2)
Finally, the FCPC reiterates the conditions for free legal aid (Art. 65 PA), which requires that the party be in need and that their claims do not appear doomed to failure from the outset. (consid. 11.2)
Application to the specific case
The FCPC first examines the political offense exception. It notes that A. is being prosecuted for common-law property offenses (fraud, money laundering) and not for a political offense. His allegations of political persecution, attempted poisoning, and threats are not credibly substantiated. The evidence provided is vague, undated, or of uncertain origin. The Court concludes that the political nature of the prosecution is clearly not demonstrated and that the exception must be rejected. (consid. 4.6, 4.7, 4.8)
Regarding the other grievances raised in the appeal (violation of the prohibition of retroactivity, risk of inhuman treatment), the FCPC reiterates that it is not for the Swiss authorities to oversee the criminal proceedings of the requesting state, especially if it is a state party to the ECHR, such as Slovenia. Based on the principle of trust between states, the Court considers it appropriate to assume that Slovenia will fulfill its human rights obligations. The appeal is therefore also unfounded. (consid. 5.1, 5.2)
Finally, the FCPC rejects the request for free legal aid. It considers that A.'s claims were, from the start, clearly doomed to failure, both regarding the political offense issue and the other grievances. As the condition regarding the chances of success is not met, the request is rejected without even examining the appellant's financial situation. (consid. 11.3)
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court joins the two proceedings. It rejects the political offense exception as well as A.'s appeal against the FOJ's extradition decision. The request for free legal aid is also rejected. Consequently, A.'s extradition to Slovenia is confirmed and the court costs, set at 3,000 francs, are charged to the appellant. (Dispositif, consid. 6, 12)
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
