TF, 05.10.2026, 1C_551/2026
Facts
As part of a Romanian criminal investigation targeting the directors and executives of an insurance company for embezzlement and various forms of financial misconduct that led to the revocation of its operating license and subsequent bankruptcy, the Romanian authorities requested mutual legal assistance from Switzerland. By a closing decision dated February 20, 2026, the Geneva Public Prosecutor's Office ordered the transmission to the Bucharest Prosecutor's Office of documents relating to several bank accounts held by the companies A. AD, B. AD, C. AD, and D. SA (consid 1.1).
The first three companies challenged this transmission, fearing that the banking information would be used in two pending arbitration proceedings before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), in which Romania was participating as a defendant. They also cited proceedings before the ECHR concerning the regularity of the bankruptcy. The Federal Criminal Court (FCC) rejected their appeals on September 14, 2026, noting in particular that the principle of specialty provided sufficient protection. Before the Federal Supreme Court, they primarily requested that the transmission be prohibited, or alternatively, that the documents be limited in time and that they be allowed to participate in the sorting process, or even that an express prohibition on use in civil or arbitration proceedings be issued (consid 1.2).
Law
According toart. 84 para. 1 LTF, an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court in matters of international mutual legal assistance is only admissible if it concerns, in particular, the transmission of information covered by banking secrecy and is of particular importance. This second condition may arise from serious violations of procedural guarantees, a legal issue of principle, or a departure from established case law. It is the responsibility of the appellants to demonstrate these circumstances concretely in accordance with art. 42 para. 2 LTF (consid 1).
The principle of specialty, enshrined in particular inart. 67 para. 1 EIMPandart. 2 let. a CEEJ, limits the use of transmitted information to the purposes authorized within the framework of mutual assistance. According to the principle of trust between states, a state party to the CEEJ is presumed to respect its international commitments and the conditions imposed by Switzerland. This presumption can only be overturned by irrefutable evidence, and no express declaration of compliance with the principle of specialty is required (consid 1.2).
This presumption remains applicable even when civil, administrative, tax, or arbitration proceedings are conducted in parallel with the foreign criminal investigation. The mere coexistence of such proceedings does not, therefore, allow for the presumption of improper use of the transmitted information (consid 1.2).
Application to the specific case
The transmission of banking information covered by secrecy met the first condition of admissibility under art. 84 para. 1 LTF. However, the appellants failed to demonstrate the existence of a case of particular importance. They argued that the Romanian authorities could exploit the documents in arbitration proceedings or before the ECHR, without these jurisdictions themselves being bound by the principle of specialty (consid 1.1 and 1.2).
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellants essentially relied on the chronological coexistence of the various proceedings without presenting concrete evidence of an actual or foreseeable violation of the principle of specialty. Romania, as a party to the CEEJ, benefited from the presumption of compliance with its treaty obligations. The FCC was therefore entitled to characterize the alleged risk as hypothetical, and this assessment did not justify the intervention of the Federal Supreme Court (consid 1.2).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible due to the lack of a case of particular importance within the meaning of art. 84 LTF. The transmission of the banking information therefore remains authorized. The court costs of CHF 2,000 are to be borne jointly and severally by the three appellants. The judgment is rendered according to the simplified procedure ofArt. 109 para. 1 FSCA(recital 2).