Facts
[A.], a French national, was extradited from Belgium to Switzerland in June 2007 for the enforcement of a judgment rendered by default in December 2003 and for the purposes of three ongoing criminal investigations. Extradition was refused for the enforcement of two judgments rendered in 1994 and 1999, as the two sentences were time-barred under Belgian law.
Subsequently, [A.] was arrested at Zurich Airport in April 2009 upon his return from a trip, for the purpose of enforcing the conviction handed down in 1994. The Vaud authorities then resumed the enforcement of the 1994 and 1999 convictions.
[A.] filed a request for conditional release, which was treated as an appeal against his arrest and the enforcement of the two convictions from 1994 and 1999. The Enforcement Judge dismissed this appeal.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal upheld A.'s appeal. The Court considered that the principle of specialty, provided for in Art. 14 of the European Convention on Extradition, had to be respected. Although Art. 14 of this Convention does not require that the extradited person be informed of the consequences of the expiration of the grace period, Art. 38(2) of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) provides for this obligation to inform.
According to case law, in the presence of a judicial assistance or extradition treaty, the most…