Federal Supreme Court, 12.11.2025, 1C_658/2025
Facts
As part of an investigation into financial investment fraud, the Stuttgart Public Prosecutor's Office requested mutual legal assistance from Switzerland. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich accepted the request and ordered the production of bank documents concerning an account held by A., while imposing a non-disclosure order on the account holder. After this order was lifted, the Public Prosecutor's Office issued a closing order authorizing the transmission of the documents to the German authorities. A., who resides abroad, was informed of this decision through his bank and appealed to the Federal Criminal Court. He argued a violation of his right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 of the Constitution), as he had not been informed of the proceedings earlier. The Federal Criminal Court rejected his appeal. A. then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
According to Art. 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), an appeal in matters of international mutual assistance in criminal matters is only admissible if it concerns, in particular, the transmission of information subject to secrecy and if it involves a particularly important case. A case is considered particularly important if, among other things, there are reasons to believe that fundamental procedural principles have been violated. In accordance with Art. 80m of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) and Art. 9 of the corresponding Ordinance (OIMAC), a party residing abroad is required to designate a domicile for service in Switzerland. Failure to do so may result in the omission of service of procedural documents. According to established case law, it is the bank's responsibility to inform its client of the existence of mutual assistance proceedings concerning them. This approach is strict but necessary given the public interest in ensuring that mutual legal assistance requests are processed expeditiously (cf. Art. 17a IMAC).
Application to the Case
While this case does involve the transmission of information subject to secrecy (bank data) and thus falls within an area where an appeal is possible under Art. 84 para. 1 FSCA, the appellant's claim based on an alleged violation of his right to be heard is rejected. The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that the appellant, residing abroad, did not designate a domicile for service in Switzerland. In accordance with the law and case law, the authority was therefore not required to inform him directly. This task falls to the bank. The Federal Supreme Court emphasizes that several months elapsed between the lifting of the non-disclosure order and the issuance of the closing order, providing sufficient time for the bank to inform its client and for the latter to designate a domicile for service and assert his rights. The decision of the lower court is therefore in accordance with the law and established case law, and there is no reason for the Federal Supreme Court to examine the matter further.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court does not admit the appeal. The legal costs are charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
