Federal Supreme Court, 18.09.2026,1C_463/2026
Facts
In the context of Ukrainian criminal proceedings for misappropriation of assets through abuse of power, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) ordered the transmission to the Ukrainian authorities of the transcript of A.'s hearing and its annexes. A. appealed to the Federal Criminal Court (FCC) and filed several incidental motions, notably to obtain full access to the file, to have new evidence taken into account, to suspend the proceedings, and to obtain guarantees regarding the transmission of the documents. Believing that the FCC was delaying its ruling on these motions, A. filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) for denial of justice, alleging a violation of his right to be heard (consid. 1.2).
Law
According toart. 94and100 para. 7 LTF, an appeal for denial of justice or unjustified delay may be filed at any time when an authority unlawfully refrains from rendering a decision subject to appeal. It assumes that the authority has been validly seized, that it is required to rule, and that the litigant has unsuccessfully intervened to obtain a decision within a reasonable time. The expected decision must also be subject to appeal before the FSC (consid. 1.1.1).
In matters of international mutual legal assistance,art. 84 LTF makes the admissibility of an appeal subject to two cumulative conditions: the decision must, in particular, concern extradition, seizure, or the transmission of information covered by secrecy, and the case must be of particular importance. This latter condition may be met in the presence of a serious and sufficiently plausible violation of fundamental procedural rights, a legal question of principle, or a departure from established case law. In accordance withArt. 42 para. 2 LTF, it is up to the appellant to concretely demonstrate that these conditions are met. Simply invoking a violation of the right to be heard is not sufficient (consid. 1.1.2).
Application to the specific case
The FSC considers that the appellant has not demonstrated any sufficiently serious and plausible violation of his right to be heard. The absence of an incidental decision on the requests to take new evidence into account does not constitute a violation of this right, as the FCC will be able to examine them in its final decision. Likewise, the absence of an immediate decision on the requested suspension does not violate the right to be heard, given the principle of celerity enshrined inart. 17a EIMP (consid. 1.2).
Regarding access to the file, the appellant merely contrasts his own version of the facts with the FCC's indications, without concretely demonstrating the existence of an irregularity. The FSC also rejects the existence of a legal question of principle concerning the obligation to rule beforehand on interim measures. The numerous incidental motions are part of pending proceedings that will lead to a final decision which, under legal conditions, may be challenged. The requirement of a case of particular importance is therefore not met (consid. 1.2).
The FSC therefore refrains from examining the other conditions of admissibility, in particular those relating to the subject of the appeal according to art. 84 para. 1 LTF and to incidental decisions according toart. 93 LTF (consid. 1.3).
Outcome
The FSC declares the appeal inadmissible for lack of a case of particular importance within the meaning of art. 84 LTF. It rejects the request for legal aid, as the outcome of the appeal was foreseeable from the outset, and orders the appellant to pay reduced court costs of CHF 500. The requests for suspension of the proceedings and for suspensive effect become moot (consid. 2).