TPF, 14.11.2025, RR.2025.161, RP.2025.68
Facts
The Italian Ministry of Justice has requested the extradition of A. from Switzerland for the enforcement of a custodial sentence of 4 years, 3 months, and 25 days, imposed by the Court of Pordenone for the offenses of resisting a public official, bodily harm, and aggravated robbery (rapina). Arrested in Switzerland, A. refused a simplified extradition procedure. The FOJ granted the extradition. A. (the appellant) challenged this decision before the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, requesting that the extradition be denied, that he be released immediately, and that he be granted free legal aid.
Law
The Court reiterates the legal framework governing extradition between Switzerland and Italy, primarily the ECExtr and the IMAC.
- Judgment in absentia : According toArt. 2 IMAC andArt. 3 of the Second Additional Protocol to the ECExtr, extradition may be refused if the proceedings abroad did not respect the minimum rights of the defense. However, extradition is granted if the requesting State provides sufficient guarantees for a retrial or if it is established that the person was properly summoned to appear.
- Severity of the sentence : The requested State (Switzerland) cannot refuse cooperation on the grounds that it considers the sentencing system of the requesting State to be too severe, except in cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Switzerland does not pass judgment on the penal policy of another State party to the ECExtr.
- Enforcement of the sentence in Switzerland :Art. 37 para. 1 IMAC allows for the refusal of extradition if Switzerland can take charge of the enforcement of the sentence and if this promotes the social reintegration of the person. However, this provision is only applicable if the foreign State expressly requests it and cannot be invoked against States party to the ECExtr, such as Italy.
- Free legal aid : It is granted (Art. 65 DEBA, art. 29 para. 3 Const..) if two cumulative conditions are met: the applicant's indigence and legal arguments that are not devoid of any chance of success. The applicant is required to prove their financial situation in a complete and documented manner.
Application to the specific case
The Court rejects all of the appellant's arguments:
- Regarding the judgment in absentia : The information provided by the Italian authorities demonstrates that the appellant personally received his summons to appear ("a mani proprie"), that he initially appointed a lawyer of his choosing, and was subsequently represented by a court-appointed lawyer. His rights of defense were therefore respected.
- Regarding the severity of the sentence : Given the gravity of the facts (car theft, driving under the influence, dangerous high-speed chase, endangering the lives of police officers), the sentence imposed is not considered excessive or disproportionate.
- Regarding the execution of the sentence in Switzerland : Italy has not submitted any request for the transfer of the execution of the sentence. Furthermore, the appellant has provided no evidence of his social integration in Switzerland. Finally, Art. 37 IMAC is not applicable in relations with Italy in any case.
- Regarding the request for release : As detention is the rule in extradition matters and extradition has been granted, the ancillary request for release is rejected.
- Regarding free legal aid : The request is rejected for two reasons. First, the appellant did not prove his indigence, merely submitting an undocumented form. Second, his appeal was manifestly devoid of any chance of success, as his arguments were contrary to the law and established case law.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court rejects the appeal. It confirms the FOJ's extradition decision and denies the requests for release and free legal aid. The court costs, set at CHF 3,000, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
