Federal Supreme Court, 18.09.2026, 7B_20/2025
Facts
In the context of Ukrainian criminal proceedings opened against A., among others, for money laundering, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) ordered the transmission of banking documents concerning A. and B. to the Ukrainian authorities, while declaring the request for mutual assistance inadmissible regarding the alleged tax offenses. The Federal Criminal Court (FCC) dismissed their appeal, noting in particular that they could not invokeArt. 2 IMAC. The parties concerned appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (FSC), requesting the annulment of the mutual assistance decision, alternatively a new review of the documents, as well as a stay of proceedings until the end of the war in Ukraine (consid. 1.2 and 1.2.1).
Law
According toArt. 84 para. 1 LTF, an appeal in matters of international mutual legal assistance is only admissible if it concerns, in particular, a seizure or the transmission of information covered by secrecy and constitutes a particularly important case. This latter condition may be met when the foreign proceedings violate fundamental principles, present serious defects, raise a legal question of principle, or when the lower court departs from established case law. A manifest and serious violation of procedural rights may also justify the court's intervention. It is the responsibility of the appellant to demonstrate concretely that these conditions are met in accordance withArt. 42 para. 2 LTF (consid. 1).
Regarding the transmission of documents, case law makes the standing to invoke Art. 2 IMAC, which relates in particular to the fundamental guarantees of foreign proceedings, subject to specific conditions. The person concerned must, in particular, reside in the requesting state and be exposed to the alleged procedural risks. A person who is not a defendant in the foreign proceedings cannot, in principle, invoke this provision (consid. 1.2.1).
Application to the specific case
The FSC notes that the transmission of banking information satisfies the first condition of admissibility provided for by Art. 84 para. 1 LTF. However, the appellants argue that the corruption of the Ukrainian judicial system, its lack of independence, and the maintenance of martial law for several years justify questioning the presumption that Ukraine respects fundamental guarantees. They believe that this issue constitutes a legal question of principle (consid. 1.1 and 1.2).
The FSC points out that the appellants do not have standing to invoke Art. 2 IMAC. On one hand, B. is not a defendant in the Ukrainian criminal proceedings. On the other hand, none of the appellants claim to reside in Ukraine, a condition required by case law regarding the handover of documents. Their general allegations concerning the failures of the Ukrainian judicial system are therefore insufficient to establish the existence of a particularly important case (consid. 1.2.1).
The FSC also emphasizes that its case law has regularly confirmed the granting of mutual legal assistance to Ukraine since 2022. Relations between the two states are governed by international agreements and are based on the principle of mutual trust. Under these circumstances, the continuation of judicial cooperation with Ukraine does not raise a legal question of principle justifying the intervention of the FSC (consid. 1.2.1).
Outcome
The FSC declares the appeal inadmissible, as there is no particularly important case within the meaning of Art. 84 LTF. It refuses to grant an additional deadline underArt. 43 LTF and finds that the request to stay the mutual assistance proceedings has become moot. The court costs, set at CHF 2,000, are to be borne by the appellants, in accordance withArt. 66 para. 1 LTF (consid. 2).