TF, 08.17.2026, 1C_417/2026
Facts
The Mühlhausen Public Prosecutor's Office (Germany) is conducting criminal proceedings for bankruptcy against B.________, a German national residing in Germany.
In this context, it submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to the Public Prosecutor's Office III of the Canton of Zurich on January 13, 2025.
The request sought to obtain documents relating to a credit card for which expenses were settled via an account in the name of the company A.________ AG at a Liechtenstein bank.
The German authorities suspect that B.________ is the beneficial owner of A.________ AG and that he failed to declare commission payments made to this company during his insolvency proceedings.
The Zurich Public Prosecutor's Office accepted the request and ordered the production (disclosure) of the documents from the institution E.________ SA.
After obtaining the position of A.________ AG, the Public Prosecutor's Office, by closing decision of May 8, 2025, authorized the handover of the banking documents to the German authorities.
The appeal filed by A.________ AG against this decision was rejected by the Federal Criminal Court in a judgment dated July 21, 2026.
By filing dated August 3, 2026, A.________ AG appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the Federal Criminal Court's judgment and the refusal to hand over the evidence.
Law
In matters of international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, an appeal in public law matters to the Federal Supreme Court is only admissible if it concerns a "particularly important case" within the meaning ofArt. 84 para. 1 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA).
Such a case is recognized, in particular, if 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).
The appellant is required to demonstrate concisely in its brief how this condition is met (Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA; recital 1.1).
When the criteria for a case of particular importance are not met, the Federal Supreme Court may decide not to hear the case through a simplified procedure involving three judges.
The decision may be briefly reasoned and may refer, in whole or in part, to the challenged judgment (Art. 109 LTF).
Application to the present case
The appellant alleges a violation of fundamental procedural principles, namely the principle of investigation and the principle of proportionality.
It criticizes the lower court for authorizing the disclosure of all information without independently examining its potential relevance (recital 1.2).
However, the appellant fails to explain why these grievances should constitute a case of particular importance within the meaning of Art. 84 para. 2 LTF.
It therefore fails to meet its obligation to provide reasoning on this point, as required by Art. 42 para. 2 LTF 4-1 (recital 1.2.1).
Moreover, the lower court has already addressed these grievances in its judgment.
Its reasoning regarding proportionality and the scope of the documents to be disclosed is consistent with the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, to which it may refer (Art. 109 para. 3 LTF).
Contrary to the appellant's assertions, the authorities did indeed examine the potential relevance of the documents by establishing an objective link between the appellant's account and the offenses under investigation.
The appellant, for its part, merely offers general criticism without concretely explaining for which specifically identified documents disclosure should be refused.
It therefore fails to demonstrate the existence of a case of particular importance (recital 1.2.2).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court decides not to hear the appeal (recital 1).
The request for suspensive effect becomes moot (recital 2).
The court costs, set at 2,000 CHF, are to be borne by the appellant (recital 2).