FPC, 09.15.2025, RR.2025.87, RP.2025.37
Facts
Germany issued an alert in the Schengen Information System (SIS) on August 19, 2024, requesting the arrest of A., an Iraqi national, for the purpose of extradition. A. was arrested in Switzerland on February 12, 2025.
On February 25, 2025, Germany formally requested his extradition for the importation and trafficking of a significant quantity of narcotics, committed on January 16, 2022. According to the German arrest warrant, A.________ allegedly organized the importation of approximately 1 kg of cocaine into Germany. He reportedly followed an accomplice (B.) in a Toyota vehicle, who was transporting the drugs in a VW Touran. While the accomplice was arrested at the border with the contraband, A.________ could not be intercepted. The accusations are based primarily on statements from the arrested accomplice and a witness who saw A.________'s vehicle cross the border.
During his hearing in Switzerland, A.________ opposed his extradition. On May 12, 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) nevertheless authorized his extradition to Germany. A.________ filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, requesting the annulment of the decision, the refusal of extradition, and his immediate release.
Law
The Appeals Chamber reiterates the legal framework governing extradition between Switzerland and Germany, which includes the European Convention on Extradition (ECE), the Schengen Agreements (CISA), and, subsidiarily, the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC).
The Court outlines two fundamental principles regarding extradition:
- The limited role of the mutual assistance judge in assessing evidence: The judge of the requested state (Switzerland) is bound by the statement of facts provided by the requesting state (Germany). They are not required to rule on the guilt of the person being prosecuted or to conduct an assessment of the evidence. Their review is limited to verifying the absence of manifest errors, omissions, or contradictions in the request. An exception is only permitted to prevent proceedings against a person who is clearly innocent, particularly through proof of an alibi (Art. 53 IMAC), which must irrefutably establish that the person was not at the scene of the crime.
- The protection of private and family life (Art. 8 ECHR and Art. 13 Const.): While this right is guaranteed, established case law recognizes that infringements resulting from lawful criminal prosecution measures, such as extradition, are in principle permissible. Art. 8 ECHR can only prevent extradition in very exceptional cases, involving extraordinary and duly proven family circumstances. Good social integration in the requested state is not a valid ground for refusing extradition.
The Court also recalls that release from extradition detention (Art. 50 para. 3 IMAC) is denied if extradition is granted, and alternative measures are only feasible with substantial security. Finally, free legal aid is refused if the appeal appears doomed to failure from the outset.
Application to the specific case
The Complaints Chamber applies these principles to the arguments raised by the appellant:
- Regarding the insufficiency of evidence: The appellant challenges the evidentiary basis, describing it as contradictory and incomplete. He criticizes the fact that the accusations rely primarily on the testimony of an accomplice and the lack of material evidence of his participation. The Court finds that these arguments pertain to the assessment of evidence and the question of guilt. In accordance with case law, it is not the role of the Swiss extradition judge to decide these matters, but rather that of the German trial courts. As the appellant has provided no proof of an alibi nor demonstrated any manifest error in the statement of facts, this claim is rejected.
- Regarding the violation of family life: The appellant invokes his precarious family situation (a young son and a drug-addicted partner) and his successful social integration in Switzerland to oppose extradition. The Court notes that the appellant has provided no preliminary evidence to support his allegations regarding his family situation. Furthermore, even if they were proven, these circumstances would not constitute the "extraordinary family circumstances" required by restrictive case law to prevent extradition under Art. 8 ECHR. As social integration is not a recognized ground for refusal, this claim is also dismissed.
- Regarding release and legal aid: Since extradition is deemed admissible, the ancillary request for release is logically rejected. Furthermore, given the manifestly ill-founded nature of the arguments raised, which run counter to well-established case law, the Court considers that the appeal was doomed to failure. Consequently, the request for free legal aid is also rejected.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court rejects the appeal in its entirety. It upholds the decision of the Federal Office of Justice authorizing the extradition of A.________ to Germany. The requests for release and 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
