FPC, 07.06.2026, RR.2026.61
Facts
On April 16, 2026, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) granted France the extension of A.'s extradition. On May 11, 2026, A., through her French lawyer, Ms. Kheira Flissi-Gherabli, filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. Noting the absence of a power of attorney in the file, the Court granted the lawyer, via registered letter notified on May 27, 2026, a deadline of June 3, 2026, to produce said document as well as identification papers. This letter contained an explicit warning that failure to meet the deadline would result in the appeal being declared inadmissible. Ms. Flissi-Gherabli mailed the required documents from France on June 4, 2026, which was after the deadline had expired. The documents reached a Swiss post office on June 9, 2026. (act. 1, 1.1, 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2)
Law
The FOJ's decision to grant an extension of extradition is subject to appeal before the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, in accordance with Art. 55 para. 3 and 25 para. 1 of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC). According toArt. 52 para. 1 of the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (APA), the appeal brief must be signed by the appellant or their representative. If this requirement is not met, the appellate authority must grant a short additional period to rectify the filing, warning the appellant that failure to do so will result in the appeal being declared inadmissible (Art. 52 para. 2 and 3 APA). Compliance with deadlines is crucial, particularly in matters of mutual assistance where the principle of speed (Art. 17a IMAC) applies with particular rigor. For a deadline to be met, documents must be submitted to the authority, to Swiss Post, or to a Swiss diplomatic or consular representation no later than the last day of the deadline (Art. 21 para. 1 APA). In the event of inadmissibility, the party is considered the losing party and the procedural costs are charged to them (Art. 63 para. 1 APA). If the inadmissibility is attributable to the fault of the representative, who acted without valid powers of representation at the critical time, the costs may be charged to them personally (Art. 63 para. 5 APA; Art. 73 para. 2 LOAP). (consid. 1-4, 9-12)
Application to the specific case
The Complaints Chamber noted that the initial appeal was not accompanied by a power of attorney verifying Me Flissi-Gherabli’s authority to represent the appellant. In accordance with Art. 52 para. 2 of the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (PA), it granted a deadline for rectification until June 3, 2026, with a clear warning regarding the consequences of a late filing. The deadline began on May 27, 2026, the date the correspondence was notified. The attorney mailed the documents on June 4, 2026, one day after the deadline had expired. As the French postmark serves as proof, the deadline was clearly not met. Since the condition for rectification was not satisfied, the initial defect was not cured. Consequently, the appeal must be declared inadmissible. The Chamber adds, as an obiter dictum, that even if it had been admissible, the appeal would have been dismissed on its merits, as the FOJ's decision is not open to criticism. (consid. 5-8)
Outcome
The appeal is declared inadmissible. The Complaints Chamber finds that the inadmissibility is due to the fault of the attorney, who acted without valid representation authority by failing to produce the power of attorney within the allotted time. Pursuant to Art. 63 para. 5 PA, the procedural costs, set at CHF 1,000, are not charged to the appellant but directly to their representative, Me Kheira Flissi-Gherabli. (consid. 7, 13; disp. 1-2)