Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 05.08.2026, 7B_165/2026
Facts
The Limmattal/Albis Public Prosecutor's Office was conducting criminal proceedings against A.________ and two co-defendants for fraud. During a search on July 30, 2025, two mobile phones, three laptops, and various documents were seized. A.________ immediately requested that they be placed under seal. On August 4, 2025, the Public Prosecutor's Office submitted a request to the compulsory measures court to lift the seals electronically. The scanned document bore the handwritten signatures of the competent prosecutors but lacked a qualified electronic signature. The compulsory measures court declared the request inadmissible due to a formal defect. (consid. 1.1-1.3)
The Zurich Public Prosecutor's Office appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. It argued that Art. 248 para. 3 of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code (CrimPC) did not impose any specific form for a request to lift seals and that an email attachment containing a manually signed document should suffice. Alternatively, it argued that an additional period should have been granted to rectify the request. (consid. 1.3 and 2.1)
Legal Analysis
The request to lift seals must be filed within twenty days of the items being sealed. AlthoughArt. 248 para. 3 CrimPC does not expressly stipulate any formal requirements, the Federal Supreme Court considers that the rules governing appeals against compulsory measures may be applied by analogy, as the procedure for lifting seals serves as a legal remedy allowing the Public Prosecutor's Office to challenge the maintenance of the seals. (consid. 2.2.2-2.2.3 and 2.4.1)
The requirement for written form is also justified by the content of the request: the Public Prosecutor's Office must formulate precise motions, set out sufficient grounds for suspicion, demonstrate the link between the seized items and the offenses under investigation, and address the interests invoked regarding the maintenance of confidentiality. The procedure is therefore, by its nature, essentially written. This approach is also consistent withArt. 110 CrimPC and with the general rules applicable to searches. (consid. 2.4.2-2.4.3)
An electronic request is only valid if it bears a qualified electronic signature within the meaning of Art. 110 para. 2 CrimPC. A simple email accompanied by a scanned document bearing a handwritten signature therefore has no legal effect for the purpose of meeting the deadline. This requirement applies all the more to the Public Prosecutor's Office, which is a specialized authority and must be aware of the formal requirements of the procedure. (consid. 2.4.4)
The refusal to grant an additional period does not constitute excessive formalism within the meaning ofArt. 29 para. 1 of the Swiss Constitution. A period for rectification is only granted when a defect results from inadvertence or a non-culpable impediment. A competent authority that consciously chooses to send an email without an electronic signature cannot claim an involuntary omission. Furthermore, knowledge of the sender's actual identity does not replace the legal requirement for a signature. (consid. 2.2.4 and 2.4.4)
Application to the present case
The Public Prosecutor's Office submitted its request within the twenty-day time limit, but only via email, without a qualified electronic signature. The request therefore failed to meet the prescribed formal requirements. This defect could not be remedied after the deadline had expired, and no extension was to be granted, as there was no evidence of oversight or non-culpable impediment. The compulsory measures court therefore correctly refused to consider the request. (consid. 2.3.2-2.4)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal to the extent that it is admissible. The request to lift the seals remains inadmissible. No court costs or legal fees are awarded. (consid. 3)
5/2026