TPF, 07.04.2026, RR.2025.180, RP.2025.79
Facts
The Polish Ministry of Justice has requested that Switzerland extradite one of its nationals, A., to serve a two-year and two-month prison sentence. This sentence follows a final conviction for sexual coercion and threats committed in Poland in January 2020. After obtaining additional information from the Polish authorities, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) issued an arrest warrant. A. was arrested in Switzerland on August 29, 2025, and opposed his extradition.
On October 16, 2025, the FOJ authorized the extradition. A. appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. He is requesting the annulment of the decision, his release, and, alternatively, the execution of his sentence in Switzerland. He cites a violation of his right to family life, a risk of inhumane treatment in Poland, and an unfair trial in his home country.
Law
The Court notes that extradition relations between Switzerland and Poland are primarily governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECE) and the Schengen agreements. The Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) applies on a subsidiary basis. (consid. 1.1, 1.2)
The right to respect for private and family life (art. 8 ECHR, art. 13 Cst.) protects effective and intact family relationships. Interference, such as extradition, is permissible if it is lawful and necessary. The mere difficulty for relatives to visit a prisoner incarcerated far away does not constitute a violation. Only extraordinary family circumstances can, in exceptional cases, prevent extradition. (consid. 4.2)
Extradition is refused if there are substantial grounds to believe that the person is at risk of being subjected to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment (art. 3 ECHR), particularly due to prison conditions. Similarly, mutual assistance is excluded if the foreign criminal proceedings as a whole do not respect the minimum guarantees of a fair trial (art. 6 ECHR). (consid. 5.3, 5.4)
Under the principle of trust, it is presumed that a State party to the ECHR, such as Poland, complies with its obligations. It is the responsibility of the person opposing extradition to demonstrate, through precise and detailed allegations, the existence of an objective and serious risk of a violation of their fundamental rights. (consid. 5.5, 5.6)
Art.37 para. 1 IMAC allows for the refusal of extradition if Switzerland can execute the sentence and if doing so promotes the person's social reintegration. However, according to established case law, this provision of domestic law cannot be invoked to refuse an extradition governed by the ECE. (consid. 6.2)
Application to the specific case
The Court examined the appellant's grievances. First, regarding the alleged violation of Art. 8 ECHR, the court found that the appellant failed to prove the existence of an effective and intact family life in Switzerland. Official records (SYMIC) indicate that his partner and son left Switzerland two months before his arrest. The appellant provided no evidence to the contrary, nor any proof of legal filiation or parental authority. His statements were contradictory, and his claims regarding his role as a father were unsubstantiated. Consequently, he cannot invoke the protection of Art. 8 ECHR. Alternatively, the Court added that even if a family life were established, the circumstances would not be "exceptional" within the meaning of the case law. Furthermore, extradition to Poland, where his family resides and where he is from, would facilitate visits. The court also emphasized that the appellant had knowingly evaded Polish justice before allegedly starting a family in Switzerland. (consid. 4.3, 4.4, 4.5)
Second, the Court rejected the grievances relating to Art. 3 and 6 ECHR. The allegations of mistreatment by the Polish police were deemed too vague and general, lacking any concrete evidence. Regarding detention conditions, the appellant relied on older ECtHR judgments and CPT reports on prison overcrowding. The court analyzed the case law and reports in detail and concluded that there is no serious and objective risk of inhumane treatment. The Polish legal standard of 3 m² per inmate complies with the minimum standard set by the ECtHR. The CPT's criticisms, which recommend 4 m², are aimed at prevention and are insufficient to undermine the principle of trust in Poland, which provides internal remedies for detainees. It is Switzerland's consistent practice to extradite to Poland without requiring specific guarantees on this point. (consid. 5.7, 5.8)
Third, the Court dismissed the argument based on Art. 37 para. 1 IMAC. It confirmed that this provision is not applicable within the framework of the European Convention on Extradition. Extradition is not a subsidiary measure ("ultima ratio") and, since the conventional conditions are met, Switzerland has an obligation to extradite. No request for the enforcement of the sentence by substitution was made by Poland. (consid. 6.3, 6.4)
Finally, the request for release from extradition detention was rejected, as it is ancillary to the outcome of the extradition appeal. The request for legal aid was granted, however, as the court considered that the issue of detention conditions in Poland warranted in-depth examination. (consid. 8, 9)
Outcome
The appeal is rejected. The FOJ's decision to authorize the extradition of A. to Poland is upheld. The request for release is also rejected. The appellant is granted free legal aid.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
