FSC, 14.10.2026, 7B_978/2026
Facts
In criminal proceedings no. P1 24 114, A.________ was sentenced on September 3, 2025, by Criminal Court I of the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais to a 45-month custodial sentence for professional fraud, forgery of documents, and criminal mismanagement; this decision is the subject of a criminal appeal pending before the Federal Supreme Court under reference 6B_843/2025 (recital A.a).
In parallel, the Special Prosecutor of the Valais Public Prosecutor's Office is investigating a separate case (no. MPG 19 773) against third parties suspected of having improperly marketed wines under the "AOC Valais" designation (recital A.b).
On June 8, 2026, the Special Prosecutor requested authorization from the Valais Cantonal Court to consult the file of case P1 24 114 for the purposes of their investigation (recital B).
After hearing from A.________, who opposed the request by citing the protection of their trade secrets in general terms, the President of Criminal Court I granted the request for access to the file in a ruling dated June 26, 2026 (recital B and recital 2.3).
A.________ (hereinafter: the appellant) has filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against this interlocutory ruling, seeking primarily its annulment and, alternatively, the denial of access to the file for the Special Prosecutor (recital C).
Law
The Federal Supreme Court examines its own jurisdiction ex officio (Art. 29 para. 1 LTF) as well as the jurisdiction of the lower authority, as a lack of functional or subject-matter jurisdiction may result in the absolute nullity of the contested act (recital 1.1).
UnderArt. 101 para. 2 CrimPC, third-party authorities may consult the file of a pending criminal case when they require it for an ongoing investigation and no overriding interest prevents it, with the authority directing the proceedings having sole competence to rule and impose any restrictions on confidentiality (Art. 61 let. cand102 para. 1 CrimPC) (recital 1.3.2).
The referral of a case to the Federal Supreme Court via an appeal against a judgment on the merits does not transfer control of the file from the lower cantonal courts to the Federal Supreme Court; therefore, the transmission of documents provided for byart. 102 para. 2 LTF as it constitutes only an optional procedural measure, the direction of the appeal proceedings remains competent under arts. 101 and 102 CrimPC to authorize or restrict access to this file until the conclusion of the federal appeal proceedings (recital 1.4.2 and 1.4.3).
A decision authorizing a third-party authority to consult a criminal file while proceedings are pending does not conclude the proceedings and is therefore incidental in nature (art. 90 LTF a contrario) (recital 2.1).
As it concerns neither jurisdiction nor recusal (art. 92 LTF), it may only be challenged before the Federal Supreme Court if it is likely to cause irreparable legal prejudice (art. 93 para. 1 let. a LTF), a condition that the appellant must demonstrate (recital 2.1).
According to established case law, the disclosure of a file to a third party authorized by law is equivalent to consultation granted to a private claimant or the effects of a joinder of cases: it constitutes a mere inconvenience inherent in any criminal proceeding, which is in itself insufficient to characterize irreparable prejudice, especially since the accused may request the redaction or separation of specific documents pursuant toart. 102 para. 1 CrimPC (recital 2.2).
Application to the specific case
The President of the First Criminal Court of the Valais Cantonal Court indeed possessed the functional competence to rule on the access request filed on June 8, 2026, by the Extraordinary Prosecutor, notwithstanding the pending federal appeal on the merits of the criminal case (recital 1.4.3 and 1.5).
As the contested decision is incidental, the appeal is only admissible in the presence of irreparable prejudice within the meaning of art. 93 para. 1 let. a LTF (recital 2.1).
The appellant fails to provide this demonstration, having merely invoked the confidentiality of his business relations (prices, volumes, identity of clients and suppliers) in an abstract manner without identifying the specific documents in dispute or explaining how their disclosure would exceed the ordinary inconveniences of criminal proceedings (recital 2.3).
Although he had the opportunity to request targeted protective measures based on art. 102 para. 1 CrimPC during his submissions before the President of the cantonal court, he failed to identify the documents protected by his trade secrets (recital 2.3).
Failing to justify a serious risk of grave and definitive harm to his rights, the appellant demonstrates no irreparable prejudice (recital 2.3).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible (operative part 1, recital 2.3).
The request for suspensive effect becomes moot (operative part 2).
The court costs, set at 3,000 CHF, are to be borne by the unsuccessful appellant (operative provision 3, consideration 2.3).