TF, 19.01.2026, 1C_17/2026
Facts
As part of criminal proceedings in Ukraine, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland to obtain documents relating to two bank accounts held by the Swedish company A.________ AB. The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) was tasked with the execution.
The OAG decided to proceed and ordered the production of bank documents concerning A.________ AB, which had already been seized in the context of a separate Swiss criminal proceeding. In a final decision, the OAG authorized the transmission of these documents to Ukraine.
The company A.________ AB appealed this decision to the Federal Criminal Court, which dismissed its appeal. It then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the decision and the refusal of mutual legal assistance.
Law
According toArt. 84 para. 1 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), an appeal in matters of international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters is only admissible if it concerns, among other things, the transmission of information subject to secrecy and involves a particularly important case.
A case is considered particularly important, in particular, when there are reasons to believe that fundamental procedural principles have been violated or that the proceedings abroad exhibit serious defects (Art. 84 para. 2 FSCA). This concept must be interpreted restrictively, with the Federal Supreme Court having broad discretion. It is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate in detail how these conditions are met (Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA).
If the Federal Supreme Court determines that the conditions for a particularly important case are not met, it declares the appeal inadmissible in a summarily reasoned decision.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the present case is of particular importance within the meaning of Art. 84 FSCA. Although the transmission of bank documents concerns a matter of secrecy, the condition of a particularly important case is not met.
The appellant invokes several violations of the law, but the mere listing of grievances is not sufficient to establish the existence of a particularly important case. The Federal Supreme Court analyzes the appellant's arguments in turn:
- Late notification of documents: The appellant complains that it did not receive documents from another mutual assistance proceeding in time. The Court finds that it has not demonstrated a right to receive documents from a proceeding concerning a third party.
- Insufficient reasoning and use of evidence from another proceeding: The appellant's criticisms are deemed insufficiently substantiated and do not demonstrate how the case would be particularly important.
- Statement of facts and proportionality: The lower court's decision is consistent with the Federal Supreme Court's established case law on these points.
- Ne bis in idem principle: The appellant does not have the status of a person being criminally prosecuted in the requesting state. Furthermore, according to case law, it is generally the responsibility of the requesting state to ensure compliance with this principle, unless the identity of the persons and the facts is manifest, which is not the case here.
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that none of the arguments raised justify classifying the case as particularly important. Therefore, the appeal will not be heard.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible. The appellant shall bear the legal costs. No legal fees are awarded.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
