TPF, 02.19.2026, RR.2025.214
Facts
The Italian Ministry of Justice requested the extradition of A. from Switzerland for the execution of a one-year prison sentence. A. was definitively convicted in Italy for fraud, aggravated identity theft, and receiving stolen goods, committed in 2014. The alleged acts consist of obtaining food items by using stolen checks and impersonating the owner of a restaurant.
The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) granted the extradition. A. appealed this decision to the Federal Criminal Court, raising multiple grievances, including the violation of the principle of dual criminality, the violation of his defense rights during the proceedings in Italy, the insufficiency of the extradition request, and the disproportionate impact of the measure on his family life.
Law
Extradition between Switzerland and Italy is primarily governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECE) and its protocols, supplemented by the Schengen agreements and, subsidiarily, by the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC).
The Court reiterates several key principles:
- Dual criminality : Extradition is only granted if the acts are punishable under the laws of both states. Punishability under Swiss law is assessed at the time the extradition decision is rendered, not at the time the acts were committed.
- Judgment in absentia : Extradition to serve a sentence handed down in absentia may be refused if the minimum rights of the defense were not respected. However, it is granted if the person was represented by a trusted lawyer during the proceedings, even in their absence.
- Formal requirements of the request : The extradition request must contain a sufficient statement of the facts. The requested authority is bound by this statement, except in cases of manifest errors or contradictions.
- Right to family life (Art. 8 ECHR) : Extradition constitutes an interference with family life, but this is generally permissible. Only exceptional circumstances can prevent it, which is rarely the case.
- Execution of the sentence in Switzerland (Art. 37 ITA) : This option is secondary and requires an express request from the requesting state, which, furthermore, cannot be invoked against a state party to the ECExt, such as Italy.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Criminal Court rejects all of the appellant's grievances:
- Language of the proceedings : The FOJ's decision was correctly issued in Italian, the language of the extradition request and the appellant's native language.
- Sufficiency of the request and statute of limitations : The Italian judgments attached to the request clearly set out the facts. The sentence is not time-barred under Italian law.
- Dual criminality : The facts are punishable under Swiss law as fraud (Art. 146 SCC), receiving stolen goods (Art. 160 SCC) and forgery of documents (Art. 251 SCC). Regarding identity theft, although the specific offense (Art. 179decies SCC) was introduced in Switzerland after the facts occurred, it is in force at the time of the extradition decision, which is the determining factor. The condition is therefore met.
- Rights of the defense : The appellant was present at the first instance and was represented by counsel of his choosing throughout the appeal and cassation proceedings in Italy. His rights were therefore sufficiently guaranteed, even though he was absent during the appeal hearing.
- Family life (Art. 8 ECHR) : The appellant's family situation (married, contributing to the support of his stepchildren) is not exceptional enough to justify a refusal to extradite.
- Execution of the sentence in Switzerland : Italy expressly refused this option, notably due to the appellant's failure to comply with a previous alternative measure.
- Italian internal jurisdiction : It is not for the Swiss mutual assistance judge to verify the distribution of powers between the authorities of the requesting state.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court dismisses the appeal in its entirety and confirms the FOJ's decision to grant A.'s extradition to Italy. The legal costs, set at 3,000 CHF, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
