FPC, 17.08.2026, RR.2026.19, RP.2026.8
Facts
On August 22, 2024, the Hungarian authorities requested the extradition of A. so that he could serve several custodial sentences handed down by final judgments between 2022 and 2024, totaling eight years, ten months, and four days. On January 16, 2026, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) authorized his extradition. A. appealed, requesting that the extradition be refused, that he be released immediately, or alternatively, that the sentences be served in Switzerland, and also requested legal aid (recitals 2.2 and 6.1).
The appellant cited, in particular, discrimination against the Roma minority, prison overcrowding, prison violence, inadequate psychiatric care, and restrictions on family relations. He argued that his extradition would expose him to treatment contrary to Art. 3and8 ECHR, relying in particular on reports from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and the case law of the ECtHR (recitals 3.1, 4.1, and 4.5.1).
Law
Extradition between Switzerland and Hungary is governed primarily by the European Convention on Extradition (ECExtr), its additional protocols, and the Schengen instruments, and secondarily by the IMAC. It remains subject to compliance with fundamental rights, in particular the absolute prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment enshrined in Art. 3 ECHR andArt. 25 para. 3 of the Federal Constitution. (recitals 1.1, 1.2, and 5.1).
Assessing the risk requires examining both the general situation in the requesting state and the individual circumstances. The risk must be serious, objective, and plausible. Where violations are possible but can be sufficiently prevented by reliable diplomatic assurances, extradition may be authorized under conditions. A purely hypothetical threat is not sufficient to exclude it (recitals 5.2 to 5.4).
According to the Muršić v. Croatia case law, personal space of less than 3 m² in a shared cell creates a strong presumption of a violation of Art. 3 ECHR. However, even above this threshold, hygiene, ventilation, activities, access to care, and other material conditions must be subject to an overall assessment (recitals 5.5.1 and 5.5.2).
Application to the specific case
The FPC rejects the claim of ethnic discrimination: the appellant has not made it plausible that he belongs to the Roma minority, nor has he shown a personal risk of discriminatory persecution. General assertions about discrimination in Hungary are insufficient (recitals 3.3 and 3.4).
On the other hand, CPT reports and decisions by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe establish the persistence of structural problems in Hungarian prisons: overcrowding, violence, material deficiencies, and gaps in internal remedies. Despite some improvements and cell sizes generally exceeding 3 m² in the facilities inspected, these difficulties remain concerning. The FPC thus recognizes a serious and objective risk of a grave violation of fundamental rights, which the FOJ has not dispelled (recitals 4.2, 5.7, and 5.8).
However, this risk does not justify an absolute refusal of extradition: diplomatic assurances can provide sufficient protection. They must cover detention conditions, medical care, unannounced and unsupervised consular visits, information on prison transfers, confidential contact with legal counsel, and family visits (recitals 5.9 and 5.10).
Serving the sentences in Switzerland is excluded, asArt. 37 IMAC does not allow for derogation from applicable treaty obligations, and Hungary has not submitted any request for the delegation of enforcement. Release and compensation for extradition detention are also refused (recitals 6.3, 7, and 8.2).
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, but the extradition is subject to six mandatory diplomatic assurances. Legal aid is granted, as the appeal raised a serious issue justifying a re-examination of the practice of extradition to Hungary. No court costs are charged, and the FOJ must pay CHF 5,100 to the court-appointed legal counsel (recitals 5.9, 9.3, and 9.4).