Federal Supreme Court, 08/13/2026, 1C_423/2026
Facts
On June 11, 2026, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) issued a closing decision ordering the transfer to Germany of the transcript of A.________’s hearing, which had been conducted as part of a Swiss criminal proceeding (recital 1).
On June 23, 2026, an appeal was filed on behalf of A.________ with the Federal Criminal Court (FCC).
The document was signed by his father, B.________, acting "as representative" (recital 1).
The FCC requested that B.________ produce an updated power of attorney expressly authorizing him to act in these appeal proceedings by July 6, 2026, failing which the appeal would be deemed inadmissible.
B.________ submitted only a new copy of a "general power of attorney" dated "April 16, 2003," which had already been attached to the initial appeal (recital 1).
In a decision dated August 4, 2026, the FCC declared the appeal inadmissible due to the lack of a valid power of attorney.
It also denied the request for legal aid and ordered B.________ to pay court costs of 500 CHF in his capacity as an unauthorized representative (recital 1).
On August 6, 2026, B.________, acting on behalf of A.________, filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against this decision of inadmissibility.
He requests that the power of attorney be recognized, that the initial appeal be heard, and that he be exempted from court costs (recital 2).
Law
In matters of international mutual assistance in criminal matters, an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court is only admissible if the case is of particular importance, in accordance withArticle 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA).
The appellant must demonstrate how this condition is met (recital 3).
According to the established case law of the Federal Supreme Court, a judicial authority may require the production of an updated or case-specific power of attorney when the power of attorney provided is outdated or drafted in general terms.
This requirement does not constitute excessive formalism (recital 4).
Legal costs may be charged to a representative who acted without a valid power of attorney (recital 4).
If an appeal is manifestly inadmissible, it may be dismissed according to the simplified procedure provided for inArt. 108 LTF (recital 5).
Application to the specific case
The appellant does not explain how this case would constitute a particularly important matter within the meaning of Art. 84 LTF 1-31, and there is no evidence to support such a finding.
The admissibility requirement for the appeal is therefore not met (recital 4).
Alternatively, the Federal Supreme Court confirms that the approach taken by the Federal Criminal Court was in accordance with the law.
The general power of attorney provided was dated April 16, 2003, and was neither specific to the proceedings nor recent.
The Federal Criminal Court was therefore justified in requiring an updated power of attorney, in accordance with its practice and case law (citing in particular judgments 7B_450/2026 1-26, 5A_252/2014 1-22, and 9C_793/2013 1-22; recital 4).
The decision to charge the costs to B.________, as a representative without authority, is also in accordance with case law (citing judgment 7F_70/2024 1-24; recital 4).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal manifestly inadmissible under the simplified procedure of Art. 108 LTF (recital 5).
Exceptionally, and in view of the circumstances, no legal costs are charged, pursuant to Art. 66 para. 1 LTF (recital 5).