Facts
As part of a request for mutual legal assistance from the Ukrainian authorities, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) summoned A. for a hearing as an accused person. A. appealed this summons before the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, requesting its annulment, the granting of suspensive effect, as well as legal aid and the appointment of a court-appointed defense attorney.
Law
In matters of international mutual legal assistance, an appeal may be filed against the decision closing the mutual assistance proceedings and, concurrently, against incidental decisions (art. 80e para. 1 IMAC). However, incidental decisions issued prior to the closing decision may only be appealed separately if they cause immediate and irreparable prejudice due to either the seizure of assets or valuables, or the presence of persons participating in the proceedings abroad (art. 80e para. 2 let. a and b IMAC). It is the responsibility of the appellant to allege and demonstrate the likelihood of such prejudice.
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber classifies the summons as an incidental decision. It then examines whether this decision falls under one of the cases provided for in art. 80e para. 2 IMAC. The Court finds that the summons involves neither the seizure of assets or valuables (let. a), nor the presence of persons participating in the proceedings in Ukraine (let. b). The restrictive conditions for a separate appeal against an incidental decision are therefore not met. Consequently, the appeal is inadmissible.
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber declares the appeal inadmissible. Consequently, the requests for suspensive effect, legal aid, and the appointment of a court-appointed attorney become moot. The decision is rendered without costs.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
