TF, 04.27.2026, 1C_195/2026
Facts
Belgian authorities, investigating an organized crime network linked to encrypted phones, have submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland.
The request sought the seizure and transmission of data stored on the servers of a Swiss company, D.________ GmbH.
This data belongs to the company A.________ Inc., which considers itself the "data controller."
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich executed the seizure but refused to recognize A.________ Inc. as a party to the proceedings, deeming that only the holder of the servers (D.________ GmbH) was directly affected by the measure.
This decision was upheld by the Federal Criminal Court (FCC). A.________ Inc. then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (FSC).
Law
In matters of international mutual legal assistance, standing (party status) belongs to the person who is personally and directly affected by the assistance measure and who has a legitimate interest in its cancellation (art. 80h let. b IMAC).
According to consistent and restrictive case law, in the event of a seizure, the person directly affected is the one who has factual control over the seized object at the time of the measure.
For the Federal Supreme Court to hear an appeal in this area, it must be a particularly important case, notably if it raises a legal issue of principle or if serious procedural flaws are alleged (art. 84 LTF).
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the coercive measure (the seizure) was executed on the physical servers belonging to the company D.________ GmbH. It was therefore the latter that had factual control over them.
Although A.________ Inc. is the owner of the data and had remote access to it, it was not the direct holder of the seized media. Consequently, it is not considered "directly affected" by the measure within the meaning of the case law.
The Federal Supreme Court considers this interpretation, while restrictive, necessary to ensure the effectiveness of mutual assistance procedures and to avoid a proliferation of parties and complex jurisdictional issues.
The Federal Supreme Court also finds that the case does not have a "particularly important" character. It does not raise any new legal questions and simply applies well-established case law. The fact that data outsourcing has become common is not enough to justify a change in practice.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible.
It confirms that the status of party belongs to the host (D.________ GmbH), as the server owner, and not to the data owner (A.________ Inc.).
The decision of the Federal Criminal Court is therefore upheld, and A.________ Inc. is definitively denied party status in the mutual assistance proceedings.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
