TPF, 07.04.2026, RR.2026.11, RP.2026.5
Facts
Slovakia has requested that Switzerland extradite one of its nationals, A., to serve the remainder of a sentence of just over 16 months for trespassing and unauthorized use of a vehicle, pursuant to a judgment by the Nové Zámky District Court on July 6, 2023. Following this request, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) ordered the appellant's detention for the purpose of extradition. During his hearing, A. opposed the simplified extradition procedure.
On December 15, 2025, the FOJ authorized his extradition to Slovakia. A. appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. He maintains that his fundamental rights of defense were violated during the Slovak proceedings, arguing that he was not summoned to the hearing that led to his conviction, that his court-appointed counsel was revoked without his knowledge just before the hearing, and that the judgment was never served on him, thereby preventing him from exercising an ordinary right of appeal.
Law
Extradition relations between Switzerland and Slovakia are governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECExtr) and its protocols, supplemented by the Schengen agreements and, secondarily, by the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC). Switzerland does not grant extradition if the proceedings abroad violate the fundamental principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or the UN Covenant II, in particular the minimum rights of the defense guaranteed byArt. 6 ECHR.
The person being prosecuted must demonstrate that there is a serious and objective risk of a grave violation of their rights. For judgments that have already become final, the burden of proof is higher.
A fundamental principle is the right of the accused to be tried in their presence. A conviction in absentia is an obstacle to extradition if the minimum rights of the defense have not been respected. According toArt. 3 of the Second Additional Protocol to the ECExtr andArt. 37 para. 2 IMAC, extradition may nevertheless be granted if the requesting State provides an assurance deemed sufficient to guarantee the convicted person the right to a new judicial proceeding that fully respects the rights of the defense. Such an assurance is not necessary if the accused was validly represented by a lawyer at the hearing or if they were able to benefit from an appeal with full review of the facts and the law.
Swiss mutual assistance authorities rely on the principle of trust and do not examine the validity of foreign procedural acts, except in cases of manifest and serious violations of the law that render the request abusive.
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber analyzed the circumstances of the judgment rendered in absentia in Slovakia. The file shows that the appellant was indeed summoned to appear for the hearing on July 6, 2023, while he was in detention for another matter. However, he was released on June 27, 2023, and on July 3, 2023, the Slovak court revoked the appointment of his court-appointed counsel, deeming that the conditions for mandatory defense were no longer met. The appellant did not appear at the hearing on July 6, 2023, and was not represented by a lawyer.
The Court finds that the FOJ's hypothesis, according to which the revocation of mandatory defense concerned another proceeding, is not supported by the documents in the file. On the contrary, it must be concluded that neither the appellant nor a defense attorney participated in the crucial hearing on July 6, 2023. The appellant's absence cannot be interpreted as a waiver of his right to be defended. Furthermore, his subsequent appeal was declared inadmissible as it was filed late, which deprived him of a review of the case by an appellate body.
Under these circumstances, the appellant's minimum rights of defense were not upheld during the conviction proceedings. The Court concludes that extradition cannot be authorized unconditionally.
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber partially grants the appeal. It authorizes the extradition of A. to Slovakia, but makes it subject to an essential condition: Slovakia must provide Switzerland with a guarantee deemed sufficient to ensure the appellant the right to a new judicial proceeding in which their rights of defense will be fully upheld. The FOJ is tasked with obtaining this assurance from the Slovak authorities before proceeding with the extradition.
The remainder of the appeal is dismissed. The appellant's request for legal aid is granted to the extent that it has not become moot, and an award for legal costs is granted to their counsel.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
