FPC, 08.31.2026, RR.2026.110
Facts
As part of a mutual legal assistance procedure initiated by Ukraine, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) delegated the execution of the request to the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) in a decision dated August 15, 2025 (fact, p. 2).
On August 12, 2026, A. requested that the FOJ review and withdraw this delegation decision, seeking a formal decision subject to appeal (fact, p. 2).
In a letter dated August 17, 2026, the FOJ informed A. that it saw no reason to reconsider its delegation decision.
The FOJ stated that the delegation was an internal organizational measure falling under its discretionary power, that the mutual assistance procedure was already at an advanced stage, and that the request for reconsideration could not be used to circumvent the lack of a statutory right of appeal (fact, p. 2).
On August 20, 2026, A. (hereinafter: the appellant) filed an appeal with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court against this letter from the FOJ, primarily seeking its annulment and, alternatively, a finding of denial of justice (fact, p. 2).
Law
The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court is the competent authority to hear appeals in matters of international mutual legal assistance (legal reasoning, p. 2).
A decision, within the meaning ofArt. 5 of the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (APA), is an act by an authority that, in an individual case, creates, modifies, annuls, or establishes rights or obligations.
The classification of an act as a decision depends on its substantive content and legal purpose, regardless of its formal designation (legal reasoning, p. 2).
The Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) expressly excludes any right of appeal against certain organizational decisions.
This is particularly the case for the FOJ's decision to transmit a request for mutual assistance to the competent executing authority (delegation), which is not subject to appeal (Art. 78 para. 4 IMAC) (legal reasoning, p. 3).
Similarly, the designation of the authority responsible for conducting the proceedings is not subject to appeal (art. 79 para. 4 IMAC) (recital, p. 3).
According to case law, a decision refusing to reconsider a previous decision is subject to the same legal remedies as the initial decision.
Consequently, if the initial decision is not subject to appeal, the decision refusing reconsideration is not either (recital, p. 3).
Legal aid may be refused if the appellant's claims appear doomed to failure from the outset (art. 65 para. 1 APA) (recital, p. 4).
Application to the specific case
The Court first classifies the FOJ's letter of August 17, 2026.
By ruling negatively on the appellant's request for reconsideration, the FOJ issued an act that, in substance, is equivalent to a dismissal decision (recital, p. 3).
However, this decision concerns the refusal to reconsider a delegation decision.
Yet, the delegation decision itself is explicitly excluded from any appeal by art. 78 para. 4 IMAC (recital, p. 3).
In accordance with case law, the decision refusing reconsideration follows the fate of the initial decision and is therefore also not subject to appeal (recital, p. 3).
The Court then examines, on a subsidiary basis, the merits of the FOJ's refusal.
It finds that the FOJ correctly exercised its broad discretion in matters of delegation.
The FOJ justified its refusal to reconsider its decision with relevant grounds: the presence of the offense of money laundering in the mutual assistance request justified the OAG's jurisdiction, the advanced stage of the proceedings precluded a change of executing authority for reasons of procedural speed, and the appellant's approach was aimed at circumventing a legal inadmissibility (recital, p. 3-4).
The FOJ therefore did not exceed its discretion (recital, p. 4).
The appeal is consequently inadmissible, and even if it were admissible, it would in any event be unfounded (recital, p. 4).
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed to the extent that it is admissible (ruling 1).
The requests for suspensive effect and for the joinder of cases are also dismissed (rulings 2 and 3).
As the appeal is doomed to failure from the outset, the requests for legal aid and the appointment of court-appointed counsel are dismissed (ruling 4).
A court fee of CHF 500 is charged to the appellant (ruling 5).