Federal Supreme Court, 04.24.2026, 1C_66/2026
Facts
Since 2005, Russian authorities have been conducting a criminal investigation into A. and others for large-scale property offenses, alleging $400 million in damages caused to Russian state-owned companies (J. and L.). Concurrently, civil proceedings were initiated in London by these same Russian companies.
In 2005, the English High Court ordered a worldwide freezing order against A. and his companies, a measure which was made enforceable in Switzerland.
In 2008, the British courts refused to extradite A. to Russia, ruling that the Russian criminal proceedings were politically motivated. A. was granted political asylum in England.
On December 10, 2010, the High Court dismissed the civil action on its merits, finding that the commercial transactions were in line with market practices and that no damages had been incurred. It lifted the asset freeze.
A few days later, Russia filed a new request for mutual legal assistance in Switzerland, seeking to seize the newly released funds to secure a civil claim within the Russian criminal proceedings. This request failed to mention that this same claim had just been rejected by the English courts. The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) then blocked several accounts in Switzerland held in the name of various companies (appellants 2 through 7).
In 2011, the High Court formally prohibited the Russian companies from reasserting their rejected claim, including through the mutual legal assistance procedure in Switzerland.
In 2016, it even ordered these companies to pay $73 million in damages to A. for having obtained the asset freeze abusively.
In 2018, A. was sentenced in absentia in Moscow to 15 years in prison, and the court ordered the confiscation of the assets held in the accounts of the appellant companies, deeming them to be the property of A.
In 2019, Russia requested that Switzerland hand over these confiscated assets.
The proceedings were subsequently suspended due to the war in Ukraine.
Following an appeal for denial of justice, the OAG was compelled to issue a ruling.
On July 19, 2023, the OAG issued a decision that:
- Denies A. the status of a party.
- Finds that the conditions for the handover of the funds to Russia are met.
- Suspends the mutual legal assistance procedure until June 30, 2025.
- Maintains the seizure of the assets.
A. and the account-holding companies appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, which dismissed their appeal on January 20, 2026.
They then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
1. Admissibility requirements for appeals in matters of mutual legal assistance (art. 84 LTF)
An appeal in public law matters against a mutual legal assistance decision is only admissible if the case is of particular importance. A case is considered as such, in particular, when fundamental procedural principles have been violated or when the proceedings abroad exhibit serious defects.
2. Standing of the beneficial owner to appeal (art. 80h EIMP)
According to established case law, only the holder of a bank account has standing to appeal a mutual legal assistance measure directed at it. The beneficial owner, even if they are the ultimate beneficiary of the funds, does not in principle have such standing. The fact that a natural person uses a company as a "mere shell" does not allow them to circumvent the legal autonomy of that company to act in their own name (no piercing of the corporate veil in their favor).
3. Appeals against an interlocutory decision (art. 93 LTF)
A decision that does not conclude the proceedings (interlocutory decision) is subject to immediate appeal only if it may cause irreparable harm. Harm is considered irreparable when it is legal in nature and cannot be fully remedied by a subsequent favorable final decision. Maintaining a seizure on financial assets does not, in itself, constitute irreparable harm, unless the appellant demonstrates that it hinders their business activity or puts it at risk.
Application to the present case
The Federal Supreme Court examined the admissibility of the appeal from two distinct perspectives.
1. Regarding A. (appellant no. 1)
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision to deny him party status.
- A. is not the holder of the seized accounts, but merely their beneficial owner.
- In accordance with case law, this position does not grant him standing to appeal.
- The fact that the OAG authorized internal transfers between accounts for tax reasons, or that the Russian court considers him the owner of the funds, does not change this Swiss procedural rule.
- A.’s appeal is therefore inadmissible, as the question of his standing as a party does not constitute a “particularly important case” within the meaning of Art. 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF).
2. Regarding the companies (appellants no. 2 to 7)
The Federal Supreme Court analyzes the nature of the OAG’s decision.
- The finding that the conditions for the release of funds are met while the proceedings are suspended constitutes an incidental decision.
- Indeed, if the suspension were lifted, the OAG would have to issue a new formal closing decision to order the actual release of the funds, a decision which would again be subject to appeal.
- For the appeal against this incidental decision to be admissible, the companies had to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm.
- However, the appellants did not allege such harm at all. They did not claim to conduct any commercial activity that would be paralyzed by the freezing of the funds. On the contrary, they themselves stated that they were merely “shell companies” for A.
- In the absence of any demonstration of irreparable harm, their appeal is also inadmissible.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court did not consider the appeal, neither for A. nor for the companies.
The court costs, set at 2,000 francs, were charged to the appellants.
No legal costs were awarded.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
