FPC, 19.05.2026, RR.2026.46
Facts
In May 2023, the Italian Ministry of Justice requested that Switzerland extradite an individual, A., to serve a sentence of six years and nine months of imprisonment. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) granted this extradition in June 2024, and it was carried out in September 2024 following confirmation by the appellate authorities. On January 13, 2026, the Italian authorities requested an extension of this extradition to enforce further judgments rendered against A., bringing the total sentence to 24 years and 11 months of imprisonment. The FOJ approved this extension request on February 26, 2026. On April 22, 2026, A. filed an appeal against this decision with the Federal Criminal Court, requesting that the extension be denied. Subsequently, the Court required the appellant to pay an advance on costs of 3,000 francs and to elect a domicile in Switzerland, failing which the appeal would be deemed inadmissible.
Legal Principles
The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals against extradition decisions made by the FOJ, in accordance with the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) and the Federal Act on the Organization of Criminal Justice Authorities (LOAP). The appeal, filed within the statutory 30-day period, is formally admissible, and the appellant, as the extradited person, has standing to act. (consid. 1)
Extradition relations between Switzerland and Italy are primarily governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECE) and its additional protocols, as well as by the Schengen Agreements (CISA) and the EU Extradition Convention. These international instruments take precedence over national law. (consid. 1.1)
For aspects not covered by international law, or where national law is more favorable to extradition (principle of favor), the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) and its ordinance apply. Compliance with fundamental rights is reserved in all cases. The appeal procedure is governed by the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (APA). (consid. 1.2 and 1.3)
Regarding the calculation of the sentence,Art. 18 para. 3 ECE provides that the requested state (Switzerland) shall inform the requesting state (Italy) of the duration of detention served for the purpose of extradition. However, it is not the responsibility of the requested state to demand guarantees regarding the crediting of this detention against the sentence to be served, especially since Italian law already provides for such credit. (consid. 2.1)
Application to the Case
The Court notes first that the appellant neither paid the required advance on costs nor elected a domicile in Switzerland within the allotted time. Although the notification of this order was delayed, the appellant did not request an extension of the deadline. The failure to pay the advance on costs, the consequence of which had been clearly stated, renders the appeal inadmissible on purely procedural grounds. (consid. 1.4)
Ex abundanti cautela, the Court examines the merits of the appellant's grievance. The appellant claims that the Italian authorities made an error in calculating his sentence by failing to account for the period of detention served in Switzerland prior to his extradition. The Court finds that this matter does not fall within its jurisdiction in the context of an extradition extension procedure. If a calculation error was made, it must be challenged before the competent Italian judicial authorities. The appellant's grievance does not call into question the validity of the conviction judgments upon which the extension request is based. Consequently, even if it had been admissible, the appeal would have been rejected on the merits. (consid. 2 and 2.2)
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court declares the appeal inadmissible due to the non-payment of the advance on costs. It orders the appellant to pay court costs of 2,000 francs. (consid. 3 and operative part)
Silex Newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
