Extradition from Switzerland: How the Procedure Works and What an Extradition Lawyer Does

Who handles a foreign request in Switzerland?

The FOJ's Extraditions Unit is the federal decision-maker and coordinator. It checks foreign search requests, directs the arrest process, examines the formal request, and normally decides whether surrender is authorised under Article 55(1) of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC; German IRSG, French EIMP; SR 351.1). The institution is an administrative federal authority exercising the statutory first-instance extradition function, not a cantonal criminal trial court. A prosecutor in the foreign country cannot simply order a Swiss prison to transfer a detainee.

Police and competent cantonal authorities carry out the arrest, report it to the FOJ, identify the wanted person and conduct the required hearing on the FOJ's behalf (IMAC Articles 16, 46, 49 and 52). The Federal Criminal Court's Appeals Chamber reviews the extradition warrant or extradition decision when challenged. The Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht / Tribunal fédéral) is a further but restricted route, not the routine first hearing. This national division of work applies whether the person was arrested in Geneva, Zurich or another canton; local arrangements for the first hours belong to the city-specific guides.

There is one important qualification to the usual FOJ-first pattern: if a political-offence allegation is made or serious indications of political character arise, Article 55(2) assigns the decision on that issue to the Federal Criminal Court's Appeals Chamber. The FOJ refers the file with its proposal. It is therefore misleading to say that the FOJ alone decides every contested extradition question.

Which Swiss rules and treaties determine the procedure?

The relevant starting point is the treaty relationship with the particular requesting state. Switzerland is not an EU Member State: an EU European Arrest Warrant does not itself create an EU-style surrender procedure against a person in Switzerland. Schengen Information System alerts may alert Swiss authorities to a wanted person, but an alert is not a substitute for the Swiss extradition decision. In the absence of a controlling treaty rule, the IMAC and its implementing Ordinance on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (O-IMAC; SR 351.11) regulate the domestic procedure; the IMAC can also permit cooperation where there is no extradition treaty.

Switzerland's declarations to the 1957 Convention matter. Its Article 1 reservation addresses surrender to an extraordinary tribunal, and its treaty record also includes reservations or qualifications under other articles. Old declarations may have been withdrawn or changed: counsel must check the current Council of Europe depositary record, not copy an historic list. The threshold under IMAC Article 35 is, absent a governing different treaty rule, an offence punishable by at least a one-year maximum custodial term in both legal systems, subject to the statutory treatment of Swiss jurisdiction and special cases. This is a comparison of conduct, not of identical offence names; it is not a Swiss trial of the underlying charge.

How does an arrest on an international alert turn into Swiss extradition proceedings?

A search may arrive through an Interpol National Central Bureau, a ministry of justice or a police information system, including the Schengen Information System. The FOJ may direct a local arrest or enter an alert in Switzerland's RIPOL system when appropriate. Under Article 44 IMAC, a provisional arrest may occur before the full extradition file arrives; that does not mean the foreign state has already proved its case or that transfer is immediate.

After arrest, the canton must notify the FOJ. Article 46 provides that initial provisional arrest or seizure measures continue only until the decision on extradition detention and in any event no later than the third working day after arrest. This is a statutory transition point for initial measures, not a promise that every detainee will leave custody within three working days. The FOJ normally issues the formal extradition arrest warrant under Article 47; the canton serves it and questions the person under Article 52. A person should identify the document, request a copy, ask for an interpreter where needed, and have any objection and request for counsel recorded.

At this first interview, identity, nationality, the requesting country and any consent to simplified extradition become critical. The person must be informed of the right to a chosen lawyer and to contact their consulate. A relative who does not know the person's detention location should establish the arresting canton and whether the issue is an extradition warrant or a separate Swiss criminal case. Different legal powers and deadlines apply to those two kinds of detention.

What are the actual stages and time limits?

The 18/40-day rule concerns the arrival of the formal request and supporting documents during preliminary detention; it is not a 40-day overall cap on extradition detention. Article 51 says detention continues through proceedings if a timely request arrives and extradition is not obviously inadmissible, subject to available release and judicial control. Switzerland's FOJ notes that an ordinary case with all appeal channels used can take a year or more. Conversely, consent-based proceedings can be completed within days. No reliable universal overall maximum or promised completion date follows from the 18/40-day rule.

The treaty changes the 18/40-day analysis. In judgment 1C_768/2025 of 5 January 2026, the Federal Supreme Court held that Article 16(4) of the European Convention on Extradition does not require special reasons for an extension to 40 days, unlike the wording of domestic Article 50(1). Crucially, a missed request deadline may affect provisional custody, but does not itself permanently bar extradition or a new detention order on a later valid request. Obtain the requesting-state treaty and the actual arrival dates rather than treating day 18 or 40 as an assured release or dismissal.

Can the person be released while the request is considered?

Detention pending extradition is generally the starting position, but it is not an unreviewable automatic outcome. Article 47(1) allows the FOJ not to order detention in appropriate cases, including where the person is unlikely to evade extradition or endanger an investigation. Article 47(2) allows other measures securing attendance if detention is medically unsuitable or other valid reasons exist. Under Article 50(3) a request for release may be made to the FOJ at any stage. A separate appeal against the written extradition detention warrant goes to the Appeals Chamber within the ten-day period under Article 48(2). These are distinct steps with different triggers.

The decision on whether to continue custody is not the decision on whether extradition ultimately meets the statutory test. Evidence relevant to a realistic release request may include verified residence, health documentation, the exact custody history, and a concrete proposal for legally permitted attendance safeguards. Unsubstantiated assurances that the person will cooperate are not a substitute for evidence. If the foreign state does not deliver the formal request within the applicable Article 50 or treaty deadline, release from that extradition detention follows; it does not cancel a valid and independent Swiss detention order.

There is no simple automatic bail entitlement using the ordinary rules of Swiss pre-trial detention. The Federal Criminal Court has treated the assessment of flight risk and the adequacy of proposed safeguards rigorously. Counsel should therefore ask which measure and which authority is being challenged, rather than treating a custody review as a full trial on guilt. The detailed standards for contesting detention and challenging surrender belong to the Switzerland remedies guide.

What if the wanted person has Swiss nationality or more than one passport?

Article 7(1) IMAC states that a Swiss national may not be extradited to a foreign state without written consent. That consent can be withdrawn until the surrender is ordered. This is materially different from the position of a foreign citizen merely residing in Switzerland. Swiss citizenship must be established with reliable official records; where the person has dual nationality, the Swiss nationality rule still demands careful attention. Citizenship does not extinguish foreign criminal allegations, and the possibility of Switzerland conducting criminal proceedings is a separate question, not an automatic substitute on request.

The Swiss provisional-arrest power in Article 44 IMAC is worded for foreign nationals. Where a detainee holds Swiss nationality, including dual nationality, counsel should promptly ask the FOJ to identify the independent legal basis for any extradition custody and produce proof of citizenship. Article 7 protects against surrender without written consent; it is not a reason to ignore an existing detention document or its appeal deadline.

Article 7(2) contains specified exceptions for transit and the return of a Swiss citizen temporarily surrendered by a third state to Swiss authorities. Also distinguish Article 7 nationality consent from the Article 54 decision to waive the formal extradition procedure. A lawyer should establish precisely what a person is being asked to sign and what the document says. The dual-citizenship explanation covers general nationality problems beyond this national procedure.

What does agreeing to simplified extradition mean?

Article 54 IMAC allows a person to state on the record before a judicial authority that they waive the requirement for the ordinary extradition proceedings. The FOJ can then order surrender, unless special circumstances prohibit it; the waiver can be withdrawn up to the FOJ surrender order. A simplified case may proceed quickly, so a person must understand the consequence before consenting. Silence, an informal expression of willingness, a consent to speak with the foreign authorities, and a properly recorded Article 54 waiver should not be treated as the same act.

Simplification does not make all other protections disappear. Under Article 38 IMAC the speciality principle generally limits prosecution or punishment after extradition to the offences for which surrender was allowed; it has statutory exceptions, and additional prosecution may require a later request under Article 39. Any purported separate waiver of speciality must be identified and assessed as its own issue. The lawyer should also check whether the requesting state plans to seek extradition for prosecution or to enforce an existing final sentence: the papers needed under Article 41 differ according to the underlying decision.

How is the actual extradition decision made, and what happens after it?

The foreign request normally needs identification data, a factual summary, legal provisions and the applicable arrest warrant or enforceable judgment (IMAC Articles 28 and 41). Article 28(5) requires foreign requests and attachments in German, French or Italian or with an officially certified translation into one of those languages. At the hearing, the canton checks that it is dealing with the person named in the request. Counsel can compare dates, offences, documents and alleged conduct with the requested state's own records; this frequently matters more than broad general objections.

Before alleging that the foreign request is invalid because it was transmitted electronically, check the applicable Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (SR 0.353.14), its Article 6 and the relevant states' declarations. In 1C_356/2026 (25 June 2026) the Federal Supreme Court rejected a blanket objection to electronic transmission in an Italian extradition case; it also noted that the person had not sought file inspection at the FOJ stage. Counsel should request the complete record promptly and identify an actual authentication or disclosure defect, if any.

After the defence has had an appropriate opportunity to comment, the FOJ checks the legal conditions and issues its decision. It does not decide whether the person really committed the alleged crime. The ordinary appeal is to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court within 30 days after the extradition decision is notified. Under Article 21(4), an appeal against a decision granting extradition is an exception to the general rule that appeals in mutual assistance lack suspensive effect. Even so, Article 56 permits execution when the person does not give notice within five days of the relevant extradition ruling that they intend to appeal: do not wait until day 30 to address imminent transfer.

Further review by the Federal Supreme Court is exceptional under Article 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act, and its appeal period is generally ten days. The Court in 1C_584/2025 (21 October 2025), 1C_179/2026 (2 April 2026) and the later 1C_356/2026 (25 June 2026) refused to hear challenges not meeting the particularly important case threshold. The April case also refused to consider newly advanced, unsubstantiated in-absentia assertions under Article 99(1). The consequence is to put supported objections before the FOJ and Appeals Chamber in time, not to expect an automatic second judicial review. Custody release requests remain procedurally distinct.

What should a family member or lawyer assemble now?

• The complete Swiss arrest or extradition warrant, all service dates and a clear account of which authority issued each document.
• The foreign case number, requesting country, prosecution or conviction status, arrest warrant or judgment, and any known treaty reference.
• Identity and citizenship records, especially a Swiss passport or proof of acquisition of Swiss citizenship if relevant.
• A custody timeline beginning with the actual arrest, including any separate Swiss detention, transfers, hearings and attempts to obtain a copy of the formal request.
• Relevant medical records, interpreter needs and details of a reliable contact person who can receive documents promptly.
• Proof of residence, work and family arrangements if a lawful alternative to extradition detention is being considered.
• Any asylum application or decision: IMAC Article 55a requires extradition authorities to consult asylum files where asylum has been applied for.

Legal representations and appeals in the Swiss procedure must be made in German, French or Italian, according to the FOJ's procedural guidance. Article 21 IMAC provides for a legal adviser and official appointment where needed to safeguard a person's interests. Legal aid before the FOJ and legal aid on a judicial appeal are separate determinations, so an appointment for an unrelated cantonal criminal case should not be assumed to cover extradition. A lawyer can request the file, translate the decisive documents, track each service date and separate issues the FOJ can determine from matters reserved to the Appeals Chamber.

How does this work in a real case?

Hypothetical example: a dual Swiss–Georgian national living in Zurich is provisionally arrested after a foreign search notice and receives a written FOJ detention warrant. Counsel first verifies identity and the nationality documents, examines whether the Swiss Article 7 written-consent requirement applies, and records the service date for the ten-day detention-warrant appeal. Counsel separately checks whether the formal extradition request and enclosures arrive by the treaty or statutory Article 50 deadline. If the person is asked to approve a simplified transfer, counsel distinguishes that Article 54 waiver from nationality consent and explains the last point at which each can be withdrawn. No outcome can be inferred from the notice alone.

The geographic location of arrest may change who conducts the initial cantonal hearing and the practical access arrangements, but not the FOJ's national decision-making role. For the arrest-stage detail, see the Zurich and Geneva guides; questions about the FOJ process in the capital are assigned to the Bern guide. The distinction between extradition and a separate immigration removal order is explained in extradition versus deportation.

This is general legal information, not advice for a particular file. The Lex Agency team can coordinate cross-border defence with independent Swiss counsel; request a case assessment.