Federal Supreme Court, 14.01.2026, 7B_726/2025
Facts
An individual serving an institutional therapeutic measure (art. 59 SCC) was granted conditional release by the enforcement authority. However, this release was contingent upon their actual removal from Switzerland, with the measure being simultaneously extended until the date of that removal. The individual appealed this decision, seeking to have the conditional release denied in order to continue their therapy. The Criminal Appeals Court of the Vaud Cantonal Court declared the appeal inadmissible, ruling that the individual had no legally protected interest in challenging a decision that was, on its face, favorable. The individual then appealed this inadmissibility ruling to the Federal Supreme Court.
Law
According toart. 382 para. 1 CrimPC, a party must have a legally protected interest to file an appeal. This interest must be current, practical, and arise from the violation of a legal rule intended to protect the appellant's own interests. Conditional release (art. 62 para. 1 SCC) is a method of executing the measure, not a favor that the convicted person can refuse. The authority must grant it if the conditions are met. However, case law (BGE 101 Ib 452) recognizes that a detainee has a protectable interest in challenging a decision that would grant them only an "illusory freedom" or that is subject to unacceptable conditions.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the Criminal Appeals Court was wrong to consider the conditional release decision "favorable" and to deny the detainee's standing to appeal. It noted that the release is entirely dependent on a future and uncertain event (removal from Switzerland) over which the appellant has no control. Until that event occurs, their actual situation of deprivation of liberty remains unchanged. The release granted is therefore "illusory." Faced with a decision that de facto results in the continuation of their deprivation of liberty, the appellant has a legally protected interest in challenging it. The rules on conditional release are intended to protect the interests of the person concerned, who must be able to ensure they are correctly applied. By declaring the appeal inadmissible, the cantonal court interpreted the concept of a legally protected interest too restrictively and violated federal law (art. 382 para. 1 CrimPC).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the Criminal Appeals Court's ruling and remanded the case for the court to consider the merits of the appellant's appeal and issue a decision.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Justine Arnal and Camille Perrier Depeursinge
