Federal Supreme Court, 30.10.2025, 6B_551/2023
Facts
A man, born in 1998 and training to be a nurse, was found guilty of pornography under the provisions of Art. 197 paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC). Between 2019 and 2020, he distributed around thirty files and saved over a hundred more (images and videos) depicting real sexual acts involving minors. He was sentenced to a suspended monetary penalty of 150 daily penalty units and a fine. In accordance with Art. 67 SCC, the court of first instance also imposed a lifetime ban on any professional or organized non-professional activity involving regular contact with minors. This measure was upheld on appeal by the Valais Cantonal Court. The convicted man appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, arguing that this lifetime ban is disproportionate and violates his fundamental rights, in particular his right to privacy (Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)).
Law
The Federal Supreme Court examined the legality and proportionality of the lifetime professional ban.
Regarding the ban on exercising an activity (Art. 67 SCC), the law mandates a lifetime ban for individuals convicted of pornography involving sexual acts with minors (Art. 197 para. 4 or 5 SCC). This measure is final and cannot be lifted (Art. 67c para. 6bis SCC). The judge may only waive it in exceptional cases of very minor gravity, if the measure is not necessary to prevent further offenses; this exception must be applied in a particularly restrictive manner.
A lifetime ban on professional activity involving contact with minors constitutes an interference with private life (Art. 8 ECHR). This measure serves the legitimate aim of protecting children. Regarding proportionality, the Federal Supreme Court emphasizes the wide margin of appreciation afforded to states in this area, the gravity of pornographic offenses involving minors, and the fact that Swiss legislation, stemming from a popular mandate, has opted for a strict regime. The measure does not prohibit all professional activity in the healthcare sector: the appellant may work in areas that do not involve contact with minors. However, the Federal Supreme Court acknowledges that a very positive future development could, in the long term, raise the question of the necessity of maintaining such a lifetime measure.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appellant's arguments. The exception clause provided for "very minor gravity" cases does not apply: the actions lasted for a year, involved a significant number of files, concerned serious offenses (felonies and misdemeanors) carrying high potential penalties, and the actual sentence of 150 daily penalty units confirms the gravity of the case.
The lifetime professional ban is not disproportionate: it aims to protect minors, a legitimate objective under the ECHR. Even without physical contact, the offenses committed fuel the child pornography market and are of a certain gravity. The impact on the appellant's professional life remains limited, as he can retrain for healthcare activities without contact with minors, such as in a nursing home, a field in which he already has experience. Furthermore, his young age facilitates potential professional retraining. As for the final and non-reviewable nature of the measure, it is not disproportionate at the time of sentencing. However, the Federal Supreme Court leaves open the possibility that a very favorable long-term personal development could, in the future, justify a re-examination of the necessity of the measure.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal to the extent that it was admissible and upheld the lifetime ban on exercising any professional or organized non-professional activity involving regular contact with minors.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Justine Arnal and Camille Perrier Depeursinge
