TPF, 09.23.2026, RR.2026.109
Facts
By a request for mutual legal assistance dated July 9, 2026, the Mulhouse Judicial Tribunal (France) contacted the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Basel-Stadt (Staatsanwaltschaft Basel-Stadt) to obtain the transmission of a criminal decision rendered on March 4, 2024, by the Basel authorities against A., convicting him of a serious violation of traffic regulations, as this document is required by the French authority to determine whether a ban on practicing the profession of sports instructor should be imposed on him in France (Facts, p. 2).
By a decision to initiate and close proceedings dated July 23, 2026, the Basel Public Prosecutor's Office granted the request for mutual assistance and ordered the delivery of a copy of the enforceable criminal order of March 4, 2024 (Facts, p. 2).
On August 24, 2026, A. filed an appeal with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, primarily seeking the annulment of the decision to initiate and close proceedings dated July 23, 2026 (Facts, p. 2).
The Basel Public Prosecutor's Office produced the case file on September 7, 2026, at the request of the Court (Facts, p. 2).
Law
The appeal procedure in matters of international mutual legal assistance is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), applicable by reference to Art. 39 para. 2 let. b LOAPand12 para. 1 of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) (considerations, p. 2).
The closing decision of the cantonal executing authority may be appealed to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court in accordance withArt. 80e para. 1 IMAC (considerations, p. 2).
UnderArt. 80h let. b IMAC, anyone who is personally and directly affected by a mutual assistance measure and has a legitimate interest in its annulment or modification has standing to appeal (considerations, p. 2).
According to the established case law of the Federal Supreme Court and the Federal Criminal Court, the transmission of evidence already in the possession of Swiss criminal prosecution authorities at the time the request for mutual assistance is received does not constitute a coercive measure against the person concerned (considerations, p. 3).
In such a configuration, the act of mutual assistance is limited to lifting and transmitting documents from Swiss criminal files (considerations, p. 3).
Since the delivery concerns pre-existing police reports, investigative acts, or judicial decisions from a Swiss proceeding, the accused or the person convicted in that proceeding is only affected indirectly or reflexively; in the absence of a direct and personal infringement of their protected legal sphere within the meaning of Art. 80h let. b IMAC, their standing to appeal against the transmission of these judicial documents is denied (considerations, p. 3).
Application to the specific case
The appeal filed by A. is directed exclusively against the delivery to the French authorities of a copy of the final criminal order rendered against him on March 4, 2024, by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Basel-Stadt (considerations, p. 3).
This decision was already in the archives of the Swiss law enforcement authorities and was not subject to any seizure or coercive measure directly experienced by the appellant within the framework of the mutual assistance procedure (considerations, p. 3).
The appellant merely alleges that he is personally and directly affected on the grounds that the transmitted document will be used to evaluate the imposition of a potential professional ban in France (considerations, p. 3).
In doing so, he fails to present any legal argument capable of challenging the established case law governing Art. 80h let. b IRS and neglects to demonstrate how he would be subject to any current coercive measure (consid., p. 3).
As the appellant is only indirectly affected by the subsequent use of this judgment under foreign law, he lacks any direct and protectable interest within the meaning of mutual assistance law (consid., p. 3).
Standing to appeal is therefore lacking, which renders the appeal manifestly inadmissible (consid., p. 3).
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber does not consider the appeal (operative part 1).
The procedural costs, set as a court fee of CHF 2,000, are to be borne by the unsuccessful appellant, to be offset against the advance payment of the same amount already made (dispositif 2, consid., p. 4).