Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 03.18.2026, 7B_1297/2024
Facts
A Vaud police officer, A.________, working at the Engagement and Transmission Center (CET), was acquitted at first instance of charges of abuse of authority and breach of official secrecy. However, the Vaud Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the Public Prosecutor's appeal, found him guilty of both offenses, and sentenced him to a 30-day fine, revoking a previous suspended sentence for a similar conviction.
The alleged events took place on February 13, 2021. While off duty at home, the officer accessed the police database ("Polvd"). He then sent an email from his private address to an acquaintance, D.C.. The latter had requested this information during a phone call in the presence of their mutual lawyer, with the intention of using it in her divorce proceedings against her husband, B.C..
The email contained two main pieces of information:
- Confirmation of a phone call the officer had made to D.C.________ in the past, following a neighbor's complaint about noise disturbances caused by B.C.________.
- The clarification that he had "never received any other calls while [he] was working regarding noise" coming from their home.
This email was submitted in the divorce proceedings. The husband, B.C.________, complained to the authorities but withdrew his complaint after reaching a divorce settlement. The officer filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against his conviction on appeal.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court examines the two offenses separately.
- Abuse of authority (Art. 312 SCC): This offense, which must be interpreted restrictively, penalizes a public official for abusing the powers of their office. It does not cover every breach of official duty, but only illicit decisions and measures taken in the exercise of sovereign power (use of coercion, official decision-making). Case law has already clarified that the mere fact of a police officer accessing a database without a professional motive to satisfy curiosity or to transmit information to a third party, while constituting a breach of official duties, does not fulfill the objective element of abuse of authority, as there is no exercise of state power.
- Breach of official secrecy (Art. 320 SCC) : This offense penalizes the intentional disclosure of a secret entrusted to or known by an individual due to their professional capacity. A "secret" is a fact known to a limited circle of people for which there is a legitimate public or private interest in keeping it confidential. "Disclosure" consists of making this fact known to an unauthorized third party. There is no disclosure if the recipient already has reliable and complete knowledge of the fact. However, confirming or supplementing their knowledge may constitute disclosure. Intent, even in the form of eventual intent (dolus eventualis), is sufficient.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court applies these principles to the facts of the case.
- Regarding abuse of authority: The Federal Supreme Court finds that the Criminal Court of Appeal erred. By accessing the "Polvd" database from home and transmitting information, the police officer certainly breached his professional duties and confidentiality rules. However, this behavior does not reach the intensity required to constitute abuse of authority under Art. 312 SCC. He did not use coercion or make an official decision in the exercise of his sovereign power. Consequently, an objective element of the offense is missing. The police officer must be acquitted of this charge.
- Regarding the violation of official secrecy: The Federal Supreme Court analyzes the two pieces of information transmitted:
- Confirmation of the noise complaint call: D.C.________ was the direct party to this call. She therefore had perfect knowledge of it. Confirming the existence and content of this conversation to her does not constitute the disclosure of a secret. On this point, the offense is not established.
- Absence of other complaints: This information is different. The fact that no other noise complaints were recorded during the police officer's shifts is confidential information, drawn from police systems, which D.C.________ could not have known with certainty. Communicating a "negative fact" (the absence of an event) can constitute the disclosure of a secret. By transmitting this information, and doing so on his own initiative, the police officer revealed an official secret. The Federal Supreme Court rejects the police officer's arguments (mistake of law, lack of intent), ruling that as a professional, he knew the confidential nature of this data, even in the presence of a lawyer.
Outcome
The appeal is partially granted. The Federal Supreme Court sets aside the judgment of the Vaud Criminal Court of Appeal and remands the case. The police officer is acquitted of the charge of abuse of authority. His conviction for violation of official secrecy is upheld, but only for revealing the absence of other noise complaints. The Criminal Court of Appeal must issue a new decision and determine a new sentence, taking into account only this offense.