TF, 17.11.2025, 1C_676/2025
Facts
As part of an international mutual legal assistance procedure with France, the Geneva Public Prosecutor's Office refused to lift the seizure of a company's bank assets (A. Ltd). The company and its director (B.) appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (FCC).
The Appeals Chamber requested that the appellants provide current and compelling documents attesting to the company's legal existence and the director's power of representation. As the documents provided were deemed insufficient and unauthenticated, the Appeals Chamber declared the appeal inadmissible and denied legal aid.
The company and its director filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against this decision of inadmissibility, submitting a new document.
Law
According toArt. 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), an appeal in public law matters against a decision rendered by the Federal Criminal Court regarding international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters is only admissible if it concerns, in particular, extradition, seizure, the transfer of items or assets, or the transmission of information subject to secrecy, and if it involves a particularly important case. Such a case is deemed to exist, in particular, when there are reasons to assume that the proceedings abroad violate fundamental principles or involve other serious defects.
Pursuant toArt. 42 para. 2 FSCA, it is the responsibility of the appellant to explain in detail how the admissibility requirements set out in Art. 84 FSCA are met.
According toArt. 99 para. 1 FSCA, new facts and evidence are inadmissible before the Federal Supreme Court, unless they arise from the contested decision.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellants provided no reasoning to establish how their case would constitute a particularly important case within the meaning of Art. 84 FSCA. In accordance with Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA, this lack of reasoning is sufficient to render the appeal inadmissible.
It further specifies that the new document submitted by the appellants is inadmissible under Art. 99 para. 1 FSCA.
Finally, the Federal Supreme Court held that the Complaints Chamber neither committed a denial of justice nor violated the parties' rights. It granted the appellants a deadline to remedy the formal defects in their appeal, specifically the lack of proof regarding the company's existence and its representative's authority, and explicitly warned them of the consequences of failing to rectify these issues. The lower court's decision to declare the appeal inadmissible was therefore justified. The refusal of legal aid does not constitute grounds for admitting the appeal either.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible. The court costs are to be borne jointly and severally by the appellants. Their request for legal aid is implicitly rejected, as the appeal is devoid of any chance of success.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
