Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 17.12.2025, 1C_699/2025
Facts
The Italian authorities submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland in connection with criminal proceedings against A. for various economic offenses. Subsequently, Italy requested the handover, for the purpose of confiscation, of assets held by A. in a Swiss bank account. This confiscation was ordered as part of a separate preventive asset seizure proceeding governed by Italian law (Legislative Decree No. 159/11) and has become final.
In parallel, the initial criminal proceedings against A. were dismissed due to the statute of limitations. The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) ordered the transfer of the funds to Italy. The Federal Criminal Court (FCC) rejected A.'s appeal, who then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (FSC).
Legal Analysis
An appeal in public law matters to the Federal Supreme Court against a decision rendered in the field of international mutual legal assistance is only admissible if it concerns extradition, seizure, the transfer of items or assets, or the transmission of information regarding secret matters, and if it involves a particularly important case within the meaning ofArt. 84 para. 1 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF). Such a case is deemed to exist, in particular, when there are reasons to assume that the foreign proceedings violate fundamental principles or present other serious defects (Art. 84 para. 2 LTF). It is the appellant's responsibility to demonstrate in detail that these conditions are met.
In accordance withArt. 2 of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (EIMP), a request for mutual assistance is inadmissible when there is reason to believe that the foreign proceedings do not comply with the procedural guarantees derived notably from the ECHR or present other serious defects. Regarding a state party to the ECHR such as Italy, however, there is a presumption that the foreign proceedings comply with convention guarantees, which can only be overturned by concrete and serious evidence of violations.
The established case law of the European Court of Human Rights accepts that preventive confiscation provided for by Italian Legislative Decree No. 159/2011, ordered independently of a criminal conviction based on sufficient evidence of the illicit origin of assets and a manifest disproportion with declared income, is compatible with the ECHR. This measure is classified as an asset-related measure of an essentially preventive and remedial nature, rather than a criminal sanction within the meaning of Art. 6 para. 2 and Art. 7 of the ECHR, such that it does not, in principle, violate the presumption of innocence or the principle of nulla poena sine lege.
Application to the Case
The appellant argued that his case was particularly important because the confiscation of his assets, ordered while the criminal proceedings against him were time-barred, violated the presumption of innocence.
The Federal Supreme Court rejects this argument. It recalls that the established case law of the ECtHR has already validated the compliance of Italian preventive confiscation with the ECHR, even in the absence of a criminal conviction. The Swiss authorities are not required to re-examine in detail the merits of the foreign confiscation decision, but only to verify in a summary manner the respect for fundamental procedural guarantees.
Furthermore, the FSC notes a decisive factor: the appellant has already filed an individual application with the ECtHR against the Italian confiscation decision. As this appeal is pending, a substantive review by the Federal Supreme Court would risk creating contradictory judgments. It will be for the ECtHR to rule on the appellant's specific situation.
Consequently, the case does not raise a new legal question of principle and does not constitute a particularly important case within the meaning of Art. 84 LTF. Other grievances, such as the statute of limitations or the ne bis in idem principle, are also dismissed based on well-established case law.
Issue
The Federal Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible, as it failed to meet the criteria for a case of particular importance. Legal costs are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
