TPF, 02.03.2026, RR.2025.191, RP.2025.82
Facts
The Italian authorities issued an alert in the Schengen Information System (SIS) and an arrest warrant for A., a Turkish national residing in Switzerland. He is accused of participating, as a co-perpetrator within a transnational criminal organization, in acts of aiding illegal immigration with aggravating circumstances. Following this alert, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) ordered his arrest and detention pending extradition, which A. unsuccessfully challenged in an initial appeal.
In parallel, the FOJ clarified A.'s residency status in Switzerland with the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM). It emerged that A. had obtained a residence permit for family reunification, despite a previous removal order having been issued against him. The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG), consulted by the FOJ, indicated that it was not conducting criminal proceedings against A. and did not intend to initiate any.
On November 20, 2025, the FOJ authorized A.'s extradition to Italy. A. filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, primarily requesting that extradition be refused and that he be released immediately. Alternatively, he requested that the criminal prosecution be taken over by Switzerland. He also applied for legal aid.
Law
Extradition cooperation between Switzerland and Italy is governed primarily by the European Convention on Extradition (ECE), supplemented by the Schengen agreements and, subsidiarily, by the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC). Domestic law applies if it is more favorable to extradition (principle of favor).
The requested Swiss authority is bound by the statement of facts in the extradition request, unless it contains manifest errors, omissions, or contradictions. It is not required to rule on the guilt of the person sought or to assess the evidence. An alibi provided by the person sought is only admissible if it is immediate and unequivocal.
The requested authority examines the jurisdiction of the requesting state only to a limited extent. Extradition may be refused on this ground only if the requesting state's lack of jurisdiction is manifest or arbitrary.
According toArt. 7 para. 1 ECE, the requested state may refuse extradition if the offense was committed in whole or in part on its territory. This is a discretionary power, not an obligation.Art. 36 IMAC allows for extradition in exceptional cases even when Switzerland has jurisdiction, if specific circumstances justify it. The executing authority has broad discretion to weigh the competing interests (the center of gravity of the offense, joint trial of co-defendants, procedural efficiency, the perpetrator's ties to the states, social reintegration). The appellate body reviews this decision only in cases of excess or abuse of discretion.
Refusing extradition in favor of Switzerland taking over the prosecution (Art. 37 para. 1 IMAC) is generally not applicable in relations governed by the ECE. Furthermore, such a takeover would require a formal request from the requesting state, except in extraordinary family circumstances underArt. 8 ECHR.
Application to the specific case
The Complaints Chamber first rejected the appellant's grievances regarding the statement of facts. It ruled that the Italian extradition request described the three migrant smuggling operations attributed to A. with sufficient precision, thereby allowing for an examination of the conditions for extradition. By demanding "concrete evidence," the appellant fails to recognize that the extradition authority is not required to verify the veracity of the facts at this stage. The statement of facts is therefore binding on the court.
Next, the Court dismissed the argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Italian authorities. The Italian investigating judge explained that the organizational core of the criminal network was located in Italy (province of Bergamo) and that a relevant portion of the criminal acts had been carried out there. Even if the appellant acted from Switzerland, his actions were closely linked to the criminal activity based in Italy. Italian jurisdiction is therefore not manifestly unfounded.
The court then examined the issue of concurrent jurisdiction in Switzerland. It acknowledged that the acts attributed to the appellant, committed in Switzerland, fell under the scope ofArt. 116 ANA and in principle established Swiss jurisdiction. However, the Court held that the FOJ had not abused its discretionary power by prioritizing extradition. Several factors justified this decision: the center of gravity of the criminal activity is in Italy; the investigation there is being conducted against all co-defendants; and reasons of procedural economy and the prospect of a joint trial argue in favor of extradition.
The appellant's personal interests (family ties, residence permit) were not deemed overriding. The Court noted that his social integration in Switzerland was recent and precarious, as he had stayed there illegally following a removal order before obtaining his permit through marriage. No extraordinary family circumstances within the meaning of Art. 8 ECHR were identified. The subsidiary request for Switzerland to take over the prosecution was also rejected, due to a lack of legal basis under the ECExtr and the absence of an Italian request.
Finally, the ancillary request for release was rejected as a consequence of the dismissal of the appeal on the merits. The request for free legal aid was also refused, as the court considered the appeal to be doomed to failure, with the appellant's arguments having already been correctly refuted by the FOJ in its decision.
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber rejected the appeal. The FOJ's decision to authorize A.'s extradition to Italy is upheld. The ancillary request for release and the request for free legal aid are also rejected. The court costs, set at 3,000 francs, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
