FPC, 04.09.2026, RR.2026.88
Facts
On July 26, 2024, A., a Romanian national, was arrested in Switzerland based on three alerts entered into the Schengen Information System (SIS). Having waived the ordinary procedure, he was subject to simplified extradition to Romania, authorized by the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ). This extradition concerned three Romanian criminal judgments rendered between 2021 and 2022. The FOJ had expressly reminded the Romanian authorities of their obligation to respect the principle of specialty, which A. had not waived (recitals 4.3 and 4.4).
On March 25, 2026, Romania submitted a supplementary extradition request to allow for the execution of a judgment dated July 10, 2025, which set a new aggregate sentence of four years, six months, and twenty days. This judgment consolidated four previous convictions, including one related to repeated threats, which were not covered by the initial authorization. As A. again refused to waive the principle of specialty, Swiss consent was required. The FOJ granted it on May 27, 2026. A. appealed, alleging in particular a violation of the principle of specialty and insufficient reasoning for the decision (recitals 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4).
Law
Extradition between Switzerland and Romania is primarily governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECExtr), supplemented by the procedural law of the requested state. Decisions of the FOJ may be challenged before the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court within 30 days, in accordance with Art. 55 para. 3andArt. 25 para. 1 ITA. The Court reviews the raised grievances freely, without being bound by the submissions of the parties (recitals 1, 2.1, and 3).
The principle of specialty, enshrined inArt. 14 para. 1 let. a ECExtr andArt. 38 para. 1 let. a ITA, prohibits the requesting state from prosecuting, sentencing, or depriving of liberty an extradited person for acts committed prior to their surrender that are not covered by the extradition authorization. However, this protection is not absolute: the state that granted the extradition may subsequently consent to the extension of proceedings or the execution of other sentences (recitals 4.2.1 and 4.2.2).
This consent requires a supplementary request accompanied by the documents provided for inArt. 12 ECExtr and the judicial record containing the statements of the extradited person. It must be granted when the additional offense is itself extraditable under the Convention. The refusal to waive the principle of specialty therefore does not prevent the requested state from subsequently authorizing an extension (recital 4.2.2).
Application to the specific case
The FPC notes that Romania specifically requested supplementary authorization to comply with the principle of specialty. The FOJ examined the extraditable nature of the repeated threats that were the subject of the fourth judgment. No element of the file or argument from the appellant demonstrated that this assessment was erroneous. Swiss consent therefore constituted a conventionally admissible exception, and not a violation of the principle of specialty (recital 4.3).
The appellant could not, during this supplementary procedure, obtain a re-examination of the three convictions already covered by the 2024 simplified extradition. His other criticisms remained insufficiently substantiated. The FOJ therefore did not violate its obligation to provide reasoning (recitals 4.4 and 4.5).
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed without an exchange of pleadings, as no further obstacle to extradition has been established. Court costs of CHF 300 are charged to the appellant. Due to the failure to designate a domicile for service in Switzerland despite the Court's invitation, the decision is placed in the file without formal notification to the individual concerned (recitals 5, 6, and 7).