Federal Supreme Court, 01.12.2025, 1C_696/2025, 1C_697/2025, 1C_698/2025
Facts
As part of criminal proceedings conducted in Ukraine against B., the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) submitted a request for supplementary mutual legal assistance to Switzerland, seeking, among other things, the transmission of documents relating to various bank accounts. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) entrusted the execution of this request to the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG), which, through partial closing decisions, ordered the handover to Ukraine of documents relating to bank accounts opened in the names of the companies A. AG, C. Limited, and D. Limited.
These three companies filed appeals against these decisions with the Federal Criminal Court (FCC), which dismissed them. They subsequently appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) through three separate public law appeals, seeking the annulment of the FCC's decisions and the refusal of mutual legal assistance.
Legal Analysis
According toArticle 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF), an appeal in matters of international mutual assistance in criminal matters is only admissible against a decision rendered in this field if it concerns, in particular, the transmission of information protected by secrecy and if it involves a particularly important case.
A case is considered particularly important, in particular, when there are reasons to assume that the proceedings abroad violate fundamental principles or involve other serious defects.
In accordance withArticle 42(2) LTF, the grounds for the appeal must succinctly explain how the contested act violates the law. When the admissibility of the appeal requires the existence of a particularly important case within the meaning of Article 84 LTF, it is up to the appellant to explain how this condition is met.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the appellants have established that the matter constitutes a particularly important case within the meaning of Article 84 LTF.
Firstly, the appellants contest the authority of the NABU to submit the request for mutual assistance. The Federal Supreme Court notes, however, that they do not challenge the subsidiary reasoning of the Federal Criminal Court, according to which the request was based in particular on a Ukrainian judicial decision authorizing the NABU to act and had been approved by the competent prosecuting authority. Failing to address this decisive reasoning, the complaint is insufficiently substantiated under Article 42(2) LTF.
Secondly, the appellants argue that the case is particularly important on the grounds that the proceedings conducted in Ukraine constitute a "show trial" and have led to the publication of confidential information by third parties, in violation of the principle of specialty.
The Federal Supreme Court rejects this argument based on the reasoning of the Federal Criminal Court. The principle of specialty, as provided for inArticle 67 of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC)aims to prevent the requesting state from using information and documents obtained through mutual assistance for unauthorized purposes, particularly for investigations or as evidence in criminal proceedings excluded from the scope of mutual assistance. However, it is not violated when private individuals publish information following public hearings.
Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of trust, it must be presumed that the requesting state will comply with the obligations arising from international mutual assistance, as there is no concrete evidence in this case to suggest that Ukraine will fail to respect the principle of specialty.
The Federal Supreme Court therefore concludes that the appellants have not established that the case constitutes a particularly important case within the meaning of Art. 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court joins the three proceedings. It declares the appeals inadmissible, as the appellants failed to demonstrate the existence of a particularly important case within the meaning of Art. 84 LTF. The legal costs are to be borne by the appellants.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
