TPF, 27.04.2026, RR.2026.44, RP.2026.21
Facts
The German authorities issued an arrest warrant via the Schengen Information System (SIS) for A., a Georgian national, in connection with a burglary committed in Germany in August 2024, resulting in a loss of approximately 33,000 euros. A. was arrested in Switzerland on December 14, 2025, where he had filed an asylum application. Placed in extradition detention, he opposed his extradition to Germany.
Following the formal extradition request filed by Germany, A., assisted by his lawyer, maintained his opposition. He invoked an alibi, claiming to have been in Georgia at the time of the incident, and requested that investigations be conducted. He also demanded that Switzerland obtain guarantees from Germany regarding compliance with the ECHR and the principle of specialty. Finally, he requested that his Swiss asylum file be included in the extradition proceedings.
On March 17, 2026, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) authorized A.'s extradition to Germany. A. appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, reiterating his arguments and requesting his immediate release and the granting of free legal aid.
Law
Extradition proceedings between Switzerland and Germany are governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECE), its protocols, the bilateral treaty supplementing the ECE, and the Schengen agreements. Subsidiarily, the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) and its ordinance (OIMAC) apply, as does the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). More favorable domestic law (principle of favor) may be applied, provided that human rights are respected. (consid. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4)
The Appeals Chamber reviews the conditions for extradition freely and is not bound by the parties' conclusions. However, it is not required to address every argument raised in detail and may limit itself to the essential points that form the basis of its decision. (consid. 3.1, 3.2)
L'art. 55a IMAC provides for coordination between extradition proceedings and any potential asylum proceedings. Case law specifies that this coordination is only necessary if the asylum proceedings are relevant to the extradition decision, particularly if the requesting state is the one where the person being prosecuted claims to be persecuted. (consid. 4.3)
Regarding guarantees, the established practice is not to require specific assurances (compliance with the ECHR, etc.) from states recognized as upholding the rule of law, such as Germany. It is up to the person being prosecuted to demonstrate the existence of a serious and concrete risk of treatment contrary to human rights. (consid. 5.2)
For an alibi to constitute an obstacle to extradition, it must be proven "manifestly" and "without delay." The extradition authority does not assess evidence regarding guilt, but will refuse extradition if the person's innocence is evident. (consid. 6.2)
Free legal aid is granted if the party is indigent and their claims are not doomed to failure. Claims are considered doomed to failure when the chances of success are significantly lower than the risks of failure. (consid. 10.2)
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber rejects all of the appellant's grievances. Firstly, regarding the asylum procedure (Art. 55a IMAC), the court finds that it is clearly irrelevant. The appellant's asylum application aims to protect him from persecution in Georgia, whereas the extradition request comes from Germany. The outcome of the asylum proceedings therefore has no impact on the legality of the extradition to Germany. The FOJ was consequently under no obligation to include the asylum file in the proceedings, and the claims of violation of the principle of legality and the right to be heard are unfounded. (consid. 4.3)
Secondly, the Court finds that the request for specific guarantees from Germany is not justified. As Germany is a state governed by the rule of law whose judicial system respects ECHR standards, there is no reason to require special assurances. Moreover, the appellant has provided no concrete evidence demonstrating that he would be exposed to a risk of treatment contrary to human rights. The practice of not requiring such guarantees for states like Germany does not constitute unequal treatment. (consid. 5.2)
Thirdly, the alibi presented by the appellant is deemed inadmissible and unconvincing. The Court notes that the evidence (a copy of a passport) was produced late, four months after the start of the proceedings, and not "without delay" as required by case law. Furthermore, the evidence itself is considered deficient: it is a simple uncertified copy, the passport is in the name of another person ("B."), and the stamps appear to indicate entry into and exit from the Schengen area, contradicting the appellant's claims. Finally, even if the passport were authentic, it would not rule out illegal entry into Germany. The appellant's innocence is therefore not manifest. (consid. 6.2)
Fourth, the complaint regarding a procedural defect in notification, which alleged that the FOJ decision was signed by an unauthorized person, is deemed "frivolous." The Court notes that the staff member in question had already intervened in the case multiple times on behalf of the FOJ, a fact the appellant could not have been unaware of. (consid. 7.2)
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber dismisses the appeal in its entirety, finding no apparent obstacles to extradition. (consid. 8)
The ancillary request for release is consequently denied, as extradition has been authorized. (consid. 9.3)
The application for legal aid is also denied. The court finds that the appeal was doomed to failure from the outset, as the appellant merely repeated arguments already dismissed by the FOJ and raised new, unfounded complaints. (consid. 10.3)
Court costs, set at CHF 3,000, are to be borne by the appellant. (consid. 11)
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
