TPF, 18.08.2026, RR.2026.35
Facts
The Slovak authorities requested the extradition of B., a Slovak national, to prosecute him for allegedly ordering the 2015 murder of a Swiss entrepreneur. On December 31, 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) appointed lawyer A. as court-appointed defense counsel. B. opposed his extradition and unsuccessfully requested his release. The defense argued, among other things, that there was a Swiss criminal proceeding concerning the same facts, and highlighted B.'s family and social ties in Switzerland (recitals 3 and 4.1).
The lawyer claimed approximately CHF 6,200 for 27.5 hours of work, including prison visits, legal research, communication with the family, and written submissions. On March 3, 2026, the FOJ authorized the extradition and set his compensation at a flat rate of CHF 3,500. The lawyer appealed, requesting CHF 6,000, or alternatively an amount set by the Court, alleging an arbitrary and insufficiently reasoned reduction as well as a violation of his right to be heard (recitals 3, 4.1, and 4.2).
Law
The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court has jurisdiction to review the compensation granted by the FOJ to court-appointed counsel in accordance with art. 21and25 IMAC. Only the court-appointed lawyer, and not their client, has standing to appeal the determination of their fees. The appeal, filed in the proper form and within the legal time limits, is therefore admissible (recitals 1 and 2).
Theart. 29 para. 3 Cst. guarantees court-appointed counsel remuneration for the steps necessary to effectively safeguard the rights of the defendant. However, this guarantee does not cover all services performed. Only steps that are related to the defense, necessary, and proportionate must be compensated. The art. 9 to 12 FITAF provide, in particular, for the consideration of the time required, expenses, and VAT (recitals 4.5 and 4.6).
Compensation depends on the complexity of the case, its importance, the time spent, the quality of the work, and the responsibilities assumed. The authority has broad discretion. When a detailed fee statement is submitted, reductions must in principle be reasoned. A flat-rate determination remains permissible, however, when the time billed appears manifestly disproportionate to the difficulty and scope of the case (recitals 4.7 and 4.8).
Application to the specific case
The fee statements grouped several services together without specifying the time spent on each. They therefore did not allow for the precise identification of the necessary steps. Despite the seriousness of the offense, the case was of limited complexity: the European arrest warrant was nine pages long and the relevant facts were succinctly stated. The duration of the prison visits appeared excessive, particularly due to the lack of distinction between travel time and consultations (recital 4.9).
Research relating to B.'s guilt, the motives for the murder, and exculpatory evidence was outside the scope of the extradition proceedings. Routine legal research was not compensable in the absence of exceptional issues. The request for release was doomed to fail in light of the applicable restrictive case law. Finally, the preparation of fee statements constituted a professional obligation that is not subject to remuneration (recital 4.9).
The FOJ was therefore entitled to find a manifest disproportion and set the compensation at a flat rate without violating the right to be heard. The assertion that the FOJ had orally guaranteed the coverage of additional services was disputed and did not provide grounds to call this assessment into question (recitals 4.10 and 4.11).
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed. The fixed indemnity of CHF 3,500 is confirmed, as its amount is not manifestly inappropriate. The court costs of CHF 2,000 are charged to the appellant lawyer and offset against the advance payment made (recitals 4.12 and 5).