TF, 13.10.2026,7B_1111/2026
Facts
On October 17, 2024, the Cantonal Inspection for Employment and Social Assistance of the Canton of Valais filed a criminal complaint against A.________ with the Public Prosecutor's Office for fraud (Art. 146 para. 1 SCC) and the illicit receipt of social insurance or social assistance benefits (Art. 148a SCC), accusing her of having concealed income and bank accounts abroad in order to improperly receive 40,085 CHF in social assistance (consid. A.a).
After transferring the file to the Municipality of Sion and subsequently noting an error regarding the public law nature of the restitution claims, the Public Prosecutor's Office ultimately recognized the Municipality of Sion as a plaintiff "in civil and criminal matters" by order of January 27, 2026, based on Art. 70 para. 2 LIAS/VSand104 para. 2 CrimPC (consid. A.b and A.c).
By judgment of June 26, 2026, the Sole Judge of the Criminal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Valais rejected the appeal filed by the accused against this order, confirming the granting of sui generis plaintiff status to the Municipality (consid. B).
A.________ (hereinafter: the appellant) filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against this cantonal judgment, requesting primarily that it be established that the Municipality of Sion does not have the status of a plaintiff in criminal or civil matters (Art. 104 para. 1 let. b, 115,118 CrimPC or Art. 104 para. 2 CrimPC), and alternatively that its status be strictly limited to the exercise of plaintiff rights in criminal matters within the meaning of Art. 104 para. 2 CrimPC, excluding any civil claims, and requesting interim measures prohibiting access to the file and the use of documents in the administrative proceedings (consid. C).
Law
A criminal appeal to the Federal Supreme Court (Art. 78 LTF) is in principle admissible against cantonal decisions of last instance regarding the status of parties to the proceedings (Art. 80 para. 1 LTF) (consid. 2.2).
However, a decision that recognizes the status of a party or plaintiff to a third party without concluding the criminal proceedings constitutes an interlocutory decision that can only be appealed immediately if it is likely to cause irreparable legal prejudice within the meaning of Art.art. 93 para. 1 let. a LTF (consid. 3.1).
According to established case law, the admission of an additional plaintiff does not, as a rule, cause any irreparable prejudice to the accused, as the mere inconvenience of having to face an additional party or seeing that party consult the criminal file is inherent to criminal proceedings and can be remedied by the final judgment (consid. 3.1 and 3.2.2).
It is the appellant's responsibility to demonstrate in detail how the incidental decision would cause them irreparable legal harm (Art. 42 para. 2 LTF) (consid. 3.1).
Art. 104 para. 2 of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code (CrimPC) allows cantons to grant party status to authorities tasked with safeguarding public interests, conferring upon them the status of a sui generis private claimant (consid. 3.2.3).
While the use of criminal case files in a parallel administrative proceeding may exceptionally be considered in terms of irreparable harm, this is not the case when a Swiss public entity acts in accordance with the law to determine the extent of an overpayment and to recover public funds through the administrative channels mandated by cantonal law (consid. 3.2.3).
Furthermore, the accused retains the right to request specific measures from the criminal proceedings authority to restrict access to sensitive documents (Art. 73 para. 2, 102 para. 1, and 108 CrimPC) or to oppose any potential civil claims before the trial court (consid. 3.2.2 and 3.2.3).
Application to the specific case
The appellant has no current and practical legal interest in challenging the admission of the Municipality under Art. 104 para. 1 let. b and 118 CrimPC, since the lower court confirmed that the public entity did not hold the status of a victim within the meaning of Art. 115 CrimPC, but fell solely under Art. 104 para. 2 CrimPC (consid. 2.3).
The appeal is therefore admissible only to the extent that it challenges the status of a sui generis private claimant derived from Art. 104 para. 2 CrimPC in conjunction with Art. 70 para. 2 LIAS/VS (consid. 2.3).
Regarding the requirement of irreparable harm within the meaning of Art. 93 para. 1 let. a of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF), the appellant argues that the respondent Municipality would use documents from the criminal file in the parallel administrative proceeding for the restitution of undue benefits (consid. 3.2.1).
The Federal Supreme Court finds this argument insufficient to establish admissibility: the criminal file has already been disclosed without any concrete abuse being alleged, and the appellant may still request targeted access restrictions for their sensitive data from the Public Prosecutor's Office pursuant to Art. 102 para. 1 and 108 CrimPC (consid. 3.2.2).
Moreover, the Municipality of Sion is a Swiss public entity subject to the principle of legality and data protection standards, which pursues a clear public interest in recovering social assistance funds received without legal entitlement (consid. 3.2.3).
The duality of legal remedies stems from the requirements of cantonal law—as claims for the restitution of social assistance fall exclusively under public law and cannot be pursued through civil adhesion in criminal proceedings—and not from an abusive tactical choice by the Municipality (consid. 3.2.3).
As the appellant retains all rights to object before the criminal trial judge, they have failed to demonstrate any irreparable harm (consid. 3.2.3 and 3.3).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible (disposition 1, consid. 3.3).
The request for provisional measures becomes moot (disposition 2, consid. 4).
The court costs, set at 3,000 CHF, are charged to the appellant, who has been unsuccessful (disposition 3, consid. 4).
No legal costs are awarded to the respondent Municipality, as it submitted its observations late and did not make any request to that effect (consid. 4).