TF, 02.25.2026, 1C_104/2026
Facts
In 2016, Italian judicial authorities submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland as part of a large-scale criminal investigation targeting B.________ and other individuals. The suspects were accused of belonging to a criminal organization responsible for fraudulent bankruptcy, money laundering, and various tax offenses, resulting in an estimated total loss of over 3 billion euros.
In this context, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Ticino ordered the seizure of approximately 1.3 million Swiss francs. These funds originated from the sale of properties belonging to the company A.________ SA, of which B.________ was the sole director.
In October 2022, the Italian courts convicted B.________ and ordered the confiscation of all seized assets. This judgment became final in March 2023. Based on this decision, the Ticino Public Prosecutor's Office issued a closing order on April 7, 2025, mandating the confiscation of the seized assets and their transfer to Italy.
The Public Prosecutor's Office attempted to serve this decision by registered mail to the registered office of A.________ SA, as listed in the commercial register. However, the mail was returned with a note stating that the company could not be located at that address. On November 6, 2025, A.________ SA filed an appeal against this decision with the Federal Criminal Court. In a judgment dated February 4, 2026, the Appeals Chamber declared the appeal inadmissible due to being filed out of time, finding that the attempted service in April 2025 was valid and that the failure to deliver was due to the company's lack of diligence in failing to report its change of address. A.________ SA is appealing this inadmissibility ruling before the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the admissibility requirements for an appeal in matters of international mutual legal assistance in criminal cases, as governed byArt. 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA). To be admissible, the appeal must not only concern the handover of assets but, more importantly, must constitute a "particularly important case."
A case is considered particularly important under Art. 84 para. 2 FSCA, notably when there are reasons to believe that fundamental procedural principles have been violated or that the proceedings abroad exhibit serious flaws. This list is not exhaustive; the Federal Supreme Court may also intervene to resolve a legal issue of principle or if the lower court has significantly deviated from established case law.
However, the Federal Supreme Court emphasizes that this condition must be interpreted restrictively to effectively limit access to its jurisdiction in this area. It is the appellant's responsibility to demonstrate in detail why their case holds such importance (Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA), failing which the appeal will be declared inadmissible.
The Federal Supreme Court also refers to the principle of good faith (Art. 5 para. 3 of the Constitution), which imposes an obligation on parties to proceedings to act in a manner that ensures the proper administration of justice. This includes the duty to ensure they can receive communications from authorities, particularly by keeping their address up to date in official registers, especially when they are aware that a decision is imminent.
Application to the present case
The appellant, A.________ SA, argues that its case is of particular importance because the decision of the Complaints Chamber allegedly violates fundamental procedural principles, namely its right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution.) and the right of access to a court (Art. 29a of the Federal Constitution.). It claims that the notification dated April 7, 2025, was invalid because the sending authority was aware that it had not been received. It maintains that the authority should have proceeded with notification via official publication.
The Federal Supreme Court rejects this argument. It finds that the appellant is merely challenging the lower court's assessment of the facts and application of the law, without raising a genuine legal question of principle. The Federal Supreme Court upholds the reasoning of the Complaints Chamber:
- The failure of the notification is directly attributable to the negligence of the appellant, which failed to report its change of registered office despite having been a party to attachment proceedings since 2016.
- Under the principle of good faith, the appellant had a duty to remain reachable. By failing to do so, it must bear the consequences of its lack of diligence.
- The Public Prosecutor's Office was under no obligation to conduct extensive searches to locate the company's new address, nor to proceed with notification by publication. It acted correctly by attempting notification at the official address and informing the Commercial Register of the lack of a domicile.
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that the issues raised by the appellant—namely the validity of a failed notification caused by the recipient's own fault—have already been settled by case law and do not meet the requirement of "particular importance" under Art. 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF). The long duration of the attachment proceedings is also insufficient to confer such importance upon the case.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible, as the condition of a "case of particular importance" within the meaning of Art. 84 LTF is not met. The court costs, set at CHF 2,000, are charged to the appellant, A.________ SA. The request for suspensive effect, granted on a provisional basis, is rendered moot.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
