Facts
The appellant, a Lithuanian national, was stopped and arrested on May 23, 2006, when entering the Principality of Liechtenstein, as he was carrying significant quantities of narcotics and amber jewelry of unclear origin. He was charged with violating the Narcotics Act and the Weapons Act. The Federal Office for Migration imposed an entry ban, which prevented the appellant from entering Swiss and Liechtenstein territory without explicit permission. The appellant challenged this decision before the Federal Department of Justice and Police, which rejected his request to restore the suspensive effect of the appeal and ordered him to pay a deposit.
The appellant requested the Federal Court to fully repeal this interim decision. The Federal Court dismissed the administrative court appeal and decided that the suspensive effect of the appeal could not be restored, as the reasons for immediate enforcement of the entry ban were more important than those for a stay.
Considerations
The Federal Court first examined whether the administrative court appeal was admissible. It found that the appellant, as a national of the Republic of Lithuania, which had acceded to the Free Movement Agreement, had the possibility of filing an administrative court appeal against the entry ban.
The court then pointed out that the suspensive effect of the appeal under Art. 55 APA was the rule, but that the lower court could withdraw the suspensive effect if there were important reasons for immediate enforcement. The Federal Court examined whether the lower court had exceeded or abused its discretion and came to the conclusion that this was not the case.
The court found that the forecast of the main proceedings did not favor the appellant, as he had been sentenced to a significant prison term in…