FPC, 07.22.2026, RR.2026.58
Facts
On March 11, 2026, the Italian Ministry of Justice issued an arrest and extradition request for A., an Italian national, via the Schengen Information System (SIS).
The request concerns the enforcement of a five-year prison sentence handed down by the Brescia Court of Appeal on October 17, 2025, for sexual acts involving minors (fact A).
A. was arrested in Switzerland on March 20, 2026, and placed in pre-extradition detention.
He opposed his extradition (fact B).
On March 24, 2026, Italy formally requested his extradition (fact D).
By decision of April 23, 2026, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) authorized the extradition of A. to Italy (fact F).
A. (hereinafter: the appellant) filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court.
He primarily requests that extradition be refused.
Alternatively, he requests that the FOJ ask Italy to submit a request for the sentence to be served in Switzerland (art. 37 and 94 IMAC) or, more subsidiarily, that it obtain individualized guarantees from Italy regarding his future detention conditions (fact G).
Law
Extradition between Switzerland and Italy is governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECExt) and various supplementary agreements, as well as, subsidiarily, by the Swiss Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) (recital 2.1 and 2.2).
Extradition may be refused if Switzerland can assume enforcement of the foreign sentence and if doing so appears appropriate for the social rehabilitation of the person being prosecuted (Art. 37 para. 1 IMAC).
However, this provision of domestic law cannot be invoked against states party to the ECExtr, such as Italy, as the convention does not provide for such a clause (recital 6.2).
Furthermore, enforcement of the sentence in Switzerland (known as "enforcement by substitution") requires a formal request from the sentencing state (Art. 94 para. 1 IMAC) (recital 6.2).
Extradition must be refused if the person is at risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary toArt. 3 ECHR (recital 6.3).
Under the principle of mutual trust, it is presumed that states party to the ECHR, such as Italy, fulfill their obligations.
The Federal Supreme Court has already ruled, despite criticisms regarding prison overcrowding in Italy, that the situation does not justify systematically making extradition conditional upon the receipt of guarantees (recital 6.4).
The right to respect for private and family life (Art. 8 ECHR) only very exceptionally prevents extradition.
Interference with family life is an inherent consequence of serving a sentence.
Only in the presence of extraordinary family circumstances (e.g., serious illness of a relative, a situation of absolute dependency) could extradition be refused (recitals 6.5.1 and 6.5.3).
Application to the specific case
The appellant invokes Art. 37 para. 1 IMAC and his right to family life (Art. 8 ECHR) to oppose his extradition, arguing that he is well-integrated in Switzerland, where he has resided with his family since 2010 (recital 6.1).
The Court rejects this argument.
Firstly, Art. 37 IMAC is not applicable in relations with Italy (recital 6.2).
Secondly, Italy has not requested that Switzerland enforce the sentence in its place, which is a necessary condition for enforcement by substitution (recital 6.2).
Regarding the violation of Art. 8 ECHR, the appellant's family situation (living in Switzerland with his partner and daughter) does not present the exceptional character required by case law to prevent extradition (recital 6.7).
Geographical distance and difficulties with family visits are standard consequences of incarceration and are not sufficient to constitute a violation of the Convention (recitals 6.5.1 and 6.7).
The appellant also alleges a risk of detention conditions contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR in Italy and requests individualized guarantees (recital 6.1).
The Court also dismisses this complaint.
The appellant limits himself to general assertions regarding prison overcrowding in Italy, without concretely demonstrating how he would personally be exposed to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment (recital 6.7).
In accordance with established case law, there is no reason to require guarantees from Italy in this specific case (recital 6.4).
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber dismisses the appeal in its entirety (recital 6.7).
The FOJ decision authorizing the appellant's extradition to Italy is upheld (recital 6.7).