Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 17.12.2025, 1C_703/2025
Facts
In 2009, Italy requested legal assistance from Switzerland in criminal proceedings against A. for various economic offenses. In 2014, Italian authorities requested the seizure of bank assets in Switzerland linked to A. for the purpose of confiscation, which the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) ordered. Subsequently, an Italian court issued a final confiscation order for these assets as part of a preventive asset seizure proceeding, independent of the criminal case. In 2021, the criminal proceedings against A. were dismissed due to the statute of limitations. In 2025, the OAG ordered the transfer of the funds to Italy. A.'s appeal against this decision was rejected by the Federal Criminal Court (FCC). A. then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (FSC).
Legal Analysis
In accordance withArt. 84 para. 1 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF), an appeal against a decision rendered in matters of international mutual legal assistance is only admissible if it concerns 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 present other serious defects (Art. 84 para. 2 LTF). It is the appellant's responsibility to demonstrate in detail that these conditions are met.
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the established case law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which preventive confiscation as provided for by Italian Legislative Decree No. 159/2011 does not constitute a "penalty" within the meaning ofArt. 7 ECHR, but rather a preventive and remedial asset-based measure aimed at preventing illicit enrichment and ensuring that crime does not pay. Such a measure is, in principle, compatible with the ECHR, even in the absence of a criminal conviction, provided it is based on sufficient evidence regarding the illicit origin of the assets and a clear disproportion between the assets and declared income. Consequently, it does not, in principle, violate the presumption of innocence (Art. 6 para. 2 ECHR) or the principle of nulla poena sine lege (Art. 7 ECHR).
Application to the Case
The appellant argues that his case is particularly important because the confiscation of his assets, despite the dismissal of the criminal proceedings due to the statute of limitations, violates the presumption of innocence and raises a question of principle. The FSC rejects this argument. It notes that the appellant ignores the well-established case law of the ECtHR, which confirms the compliance of Italian preventive asset measures with the ECHR. The issue raised is therefore not a new question of principle. The FSC notes that the oversight by Swiss authorities regarding a final and enforceable foreign confiscation order is limited to ensuring compliance with fundamental procedural guarantees, without re-examining the merits. In this case, the appellant was able to assert his rights at all stages of the proceedings in Italy. Decisively, the FSC notes that the appellant has already filed an individual application with the ECtHR against the Italian confiscation order. A review by the FSC would create a risk of conflicting judgments and is not justified under Art. 84 LTF. There is no reason to doubt that Italy will comply with any potential future decision by the ECtHR. As the appellant has failed to demonstrate the existence of a particularly important case, the admissibility requirement of Art. 84 LTF is not met.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
