Federal Supreme Court, 08.17.2026, 1C_418/2026
Facts
The Mühlhausen Public Prosecutor's Office (Germany) is conducting criminal proceedings for bankruptcy against B.________.
In this context, it requested mutual legal assistance from the Public Prosecutor's Office III of the Canton of Zurich via a request dated July 30, 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 relevant documents.
On August 26, 2025, it transmitted the documents intended for the German authorities to A.________ AG and invited it to a conciliation hearing.
After receiving the observations of A.________ AG, the Public Prosecutor's Office, by a closing decision dated November 5, 2025, authorized the handover of the banking documents.
The appeal filed by A.________ AG against this decision was rejected by the Federal Criminal Court in a judgment dated July 21, 2026.
By a 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 proceedings, an appeal in public law matters to the Federal Supreme Court is only admissible if it involves 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 5-1; recital 1.1).
The principle of good faith protects a citizen's reliance on assurances given by authorities, provided that the authority acted within the scope of its competence and the individual could not have immediately recognized that the information was incorrect.
Furthermore, the individual must have taken action based on these assurances that they cannot reverse without suffering prejudice (recital 1.2.1).
When the condition of a particularly important case is not met, the Federal Supreme Court may decide not to hear the case through simplified proceedings.
The decision may be briefly reasoned and refer, in whole or in part, to the challenged judgment (art. 109 LTF 5-1) (recital 1.1).
Application to the specific case
The appellant alleges a violation of the principle of good faith and the right to a fair trial, as the authority provided an incorrect credit card number in her summons.
However, she fails to demonstrate how this grievance would constitute a particularly important case.
Moreover, the lower court correctly ruled that the appellant could have detected the obvious error by reading the attached documents.
The appellant also does not claim to have taken any prejudicial action based on this erroneous information, which is a requirement for invoking the protection of good faith (recital 1.2.1).
The appellant also invokes a violation of the principle of investigation and the principle of proportionality, without, however, explaining how this would constitute a particularly important case.
The lower court has already addressed these grievances in accordance with case law.
Contrary to the appellant's assertions, the authorities did indeed examine the potential relevance of the documents.
The appellant limits herself to general criticism without specifying which documents, despite them being clearly identified, should not be submitted, thereby failing in her duty to provide grounds (recital 1.2.2).
In conclusion, the appellant fails to demonstrate the existence of a particularly important case within the meaning of Art. 84 LTF (recital 1.2.3)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court decides not to hear the appeal (recital 1).
The request for suspensive effect has become moot (recital 2).
The court costs, set at CHF 2,000, are to be borne by the appellant (recital 2).