FPC, 03.16.2026, RR.2026.2, RP.2026.1
Facts
On May 25, 2023, the Czech Ministry of Justice requested the extradition of Czech national A. from Switzerland. This request is based on an arrest warrant issued by the Ostrava District Court on October 27, 2021, for the offense of obstructing the execution of an official decision, specifically driving a vehicle despite a ban (Section 337(1)(a) of the Czech Criminal Code) and failing to begin serving a custodial sentence (Section 337(1)(g) of the same code).
These acts occurred in the context of recidivism. A. had previously been sentenced in 2020 to 10 months in prison and a three-year driving ban for driving a vehicle in 2018 while under a prior ban. On November 7, 2020, he was again stopped while driving a vehicle, in violation of the ongoing driving ban. Furthermore, he failed to begin serving his 10-month sentence.
For these new offenses, the Ostrava District Court sentenced A. to 18 months in prison in a judgment dated September 2, 2021. Although present at the hearing, A. left the country before the judgment could be formally served upon him, thereby preventing it from becoming final.
By decision of December 4, 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) granted extradition for driving despite the ban, but refused it for the failure to begin serving the sentence. A. appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, requesting its annulment and, alternatively, the granting of free legal aid.
Law
The Appeals Chamber reiterates the legal framework applicable to extradition between Switzerland and the Czech Republic. The European Convention on Extradition (ECE) and its protocols, supplemented by the Schengen agreements, constitute the primary basis. In the absence of exhaustive treaty regulations, the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) applies, particularly under the principle of favorability if it is less restrictive.
Art.2 ECE establishes the principle of dual criminality: extradition is granted only if the alleged acts are punishable in both states. For extradition for the purpose of prosecution, the offense must be punishable by at least one year of imprisonment. For the execution of a sentence, the sentence must be at least four months.
Art.12 ECE specifies the formal requirements for the request, which must include, among other things, a statement of the facts and the applicable legal provisions. The requested authority (Switzerland) is bound by the statement of facts provided by the requesting state, except in cases of manifest errors, omissions, or contradictions. Its role is not to assess guilt or evidence, but to verify whether the conditions for extradition, particularly dual criminality, are met based on an abstract examination.
Finally, art.65 of the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (APA) makes the granting of free legal aid conditional upon the applicant's indigence and the requirement that their arguments do not appear destined to fail. Arguments are considered as such when the chances of success are significantly lower than the risks of failure.
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber examines and rejects all of the appellant's grievances in turn.
First, the appellant claimed that the request was ambiguous, making it impossible to determine whether extradition was sought for criminal prosecution or for the enforcement of a sentence. The Court clarifies that extradition is requested for the purpose of criminal prosecution. As the Czech judgment of September 2, 2021, has not become final (due to a lack of notification to the appellant, who evaded justice), the criminal proceedings are still pending. Extradition is therefore intended to allow for the continuation of these proceedings, rather than merely to serve a judgment. The request is validly based on the arrest warrant of October 27, 2021.
Second, the appellant criticized the quality and form of the documents provided by the Czech authorities. The Court finds that the additional information was transmitted within the required time limits and in the proper form. As for the quality of the translation, it is deemed sufficient to understand the determining facts, especially since the appellant, being Czech, did not demonstrate the existence of any concrete and prejudicial translation errors.
Third, the Court confirms that the condition of dual criminality is met. The acts of driving despite a ban (Section 337(1)(a) of the Czech Criminal Code) are also punishable under Swiss law, corresponding to the offense of driving without authorization (Art. 95 para. 1 let. b RTA), which is punishable by a custodial sentence. The FOJ was therefore correct to grant extradition on this basis.
Fourth, regarding the subsidiary request to obtain assurances that the portion of the sentence related to the non-extraditable offense would not be enforced, the Court deems it moot. As the judgment is not final, the 18-month sentence may still be modified during the appeal proceedings in the Czech Republic. The appellant will be able to argue at that time that extradition was only partially granted.
Finally, the Court finds that the FOJ sufficiently justified its decision and did not violate the appellant's right to be heard.
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court rejects the appeal, finding that no grounds prevent the extradition of A. to the Czech Republic for the offense of driving despite a professional ban.
The request for free legal aid is also rejected. The Court finds that the appeal lacked any chance of success and was therefore destined to fail within the meaning of Art. 65 APA.
The court costs, set at 2,000 francs, are charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
