FPC, 07.22.2025, RR.2025.85, RH.2025.13, RP.2025.36
Facts
In November 2024, the Slovak Republic requested that Switzerland extradite A., one of its nationals residing in Switzerland, to serve a two-year prison sentence. This sentence was handed down by Slovak courts for a burglary committed in August 2020. A., who had prior convictions for property offenses, had broken into a thermal spa where his partner had worked, forced open several doors, and stolen accounting documents, causing 861.34 EUR in damages.
Based on this request, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) issued an arrest warrant for the purpose of extradition. A.________ was arrested on April 16, 2025, and during his hearing, he opposed his extradition.
On June 5, 2025, the FOJ authorized the extradition of A.________ and denied his request for release. A.________ then filed an appeal with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court against this decision, challenging both the extradition and his continued detention. He also requested the granting of legal aid.
Law
The Appeals Chamber reiterates the legal framework governing extradition between Switzerland and Slovakia, which includes the European Convention on Extradition, the Schengen acquis instruments, and Swiss domestic law (the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, IMAC). The principle of favor, which mandates applying the rule most favorable to extradition, is applicable provided that fundamental rights are respected.
The Court clarifies the scope of procedural guarantees in this context:
- Art. 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial): Extradition proceedings are not criminal proceedings determining the merits of a criminal charge. Consequently, the guarantees of Art. 6 ECHR, including the right to an interpreter, do not apply in their entirety.
- Art. 8 ECHR (right to private and family life): Extradition can only be refused on the basis of Art. 8 ECHR if it entails consequences of exceptional gravity for the family situation of the person concerned. The inconveniences inherent in any detention are not sufficient.
- Extradition detention (art. 50 IMAC): Detention is the rule in extradition matters. Release is only conceivable as an exception if specific circumstances make it possible to rule out any risk of flight.
- Legal aid (art. 65 APA): It is granted if the applicant is indigent and if their claims are not devoid of any chance of success from the outset.
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber systematically examines and rejects all of the appellant's grievances.
- Procedural grievances:
- Access to the file: The appellant claimed not to have received the Slovak judgments. The Court finds that the documents, accompanied by a German translation, were indeed sent to him by email. It considers that it was up to his lawyer to report any issues with receipt, describing the grievance as "bordering on abusive procedural conduct."
- Language of the proceedings and translation: The filings in Slovak did not need to be taken into account by the FOJ. The criticism regarding the quality of the translation of the judgments is rejected, as it is vague, unsupported by concrete examples, and the translation was certified as accurate.
- Absence of an interpreter: As the appellant agreed to be questioned in German and confirmed his understanding, no violation of his rights is found, especially since the guarantees of Art. 6 ECHR are limited in this context.
- Substantive grievances:
- Violation of the rights of the defense in Slovakia: The appellant claimed to have been tried in absentia. The Court refutes this allegation based on the file: he participated in the proceedings, was duly summoned, was absent without a valid excuse, and was represented by a lawyer on appeal. His minimum rights were therefore respected.
- Violation of the right to family life (Art. 8 ECHR): The Court finds that the appellant's family situation, having recently settled in Switzerland, presents no exceptional circumstances. Separation from his family is an inherent consequence of serving his sentence and does not constitute an obstacle to extradition.
- Detention and release: The Court confirms the refusal of release. It highlights the concrete and high risk of flight, motivated by the two-year prison sentence to be served, the appellant's recent arrival in Switzerland (weak ties to the country), and the lack of financial guarantees offered.
- Legal aid: The request is rejected for two cumulative reasons: the appeals were manifestly devoid of any chance of success, and the appellant provided no proof of his indigence.
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court joins the two proceedings. It rejects the appeals filed by A.________ in their entirety, thereby confirming the FOJ's decision to authorize his extradition to Slovakia and to keep him in detention. The ancillary requests for release and legal aid are also rejected. The court costs, amounting to 3,000 francs, are charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
