TF, 26.03.2026, 1C_167/2026
Facts
As part of criminal proceedings conducted in Ukraine against B.________ for abuse of office and money laundering, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland. This request sought the transmission of business documents from the company A.________ SA, as well as documents relating to its accounts at the bank C.________.
The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG), acting as the executing authority, ordered the production of these documents. After allowing A.________ SA to state its position, the OAG authorized the handover of the requested documents to the Ukrainian authorities in a closing decision dated November 13, 2025.
A.________ SA challenged this decision before the Federal Criminal Court (FCC), which dismissed its appeal in a judgment dated March 10, 2026. The company then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the FCC judgment and the refusal of mutual assistance.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the strict admissibility requirements for an appeal in matters of international mutual legal assistance in criminal cases, as defined in Article 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA). For an appeal to be admissible, two cumulative conditions must be met:
- The contested decision must concern the transmission of information protected by secrecy (banking secrecy, business secrecy, etc.).
- It must involve a "particularly important case."
The concept of a "particularly important case" is interpreted restrictively to limit access to the Federal Supreme Court in this area. Such a case is recognized, in particular, when there are serious grounds to assume that fundamental procedural principles have been violated or that the proceedings conducted abroad exhibit serious flaws.
In accordance withart. 42 para. 2 FSCA, it is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate in a detailed and reasoned manner why their case is of particular importance. If this condition is not met, the Federal Supreme Court rules on the inadmissibility of the appeal through simplified proceedings (art. 109 FSCA).
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the conditions ofart. 84 FSCA are met in this case.
It finds that the first condition, regarding the transmission of information falling under the scope of secrecy, is satisfied, as the request concerns confidential banking and commercial documents.
However, the Federal Supreme Court concludes that the second condition, that of a "particularly important case," is not met. It analyzes and dismisses the arguments raised by the appellant one by one:
- Violation of the right to be heard: The appellant complained about the time limit granted by the OAG to submit its comments. The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the seven-week period was more than sufficient to guarantee the right to be heard, even for a voluminous file, especially since the documents in question belonged to the appellant itself. This grievance is deemed manifestly unfounded.
- Principle of proportionality: Regarding the scope of the documents to be handed over, the Federal Supreme Court considers the Federal Criminal Court's analysis to be in line with its case law. It notes that the appellant only partially addressed the detailed reasoning of the lower court on this point.
- Other allegations: The appellant's arguments regarding a potential closure of the criminal proceedings in Ukraine and allegedly insufficient data protection in that country are deemed too general and insufficiently substantiated to constitute a particularly important case.
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that none of the grievances raised justify its intervention.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible. Consequently, the decision of the Federal Criminal Court is upheld, and the handover of A.________ SA's banking and commercial documents to the Ukrainian authorities is authorized. The court costs, set at 2,000 francs, are charged to the appellant company. No legal costs are awarded.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
