TPF, 30.03.2026, RR.2026.24
Facts
As part of criminal proceedings for money laundering conducted in Montenegro, the Montenegrin authorities submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland. On January 27, 2026, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) issued a closing order, agreeing to hand over evidence.
The company A. LTD, claiming to be a party to the proceedings, filed an appeal against this decision on March 6, 2026, through its lawyer, .
The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court then set a deadline for the appellant company to pay an advance on costs of CHF 5,000 and, crucially, to produce a power of attorney for its lawyer, as well as documents attesting to its legal existence and the signatory's authority to represent it. The Court explicitly warned that failure to produce these documents within the deadline would result in the appeal being declared inadmissible.
Although the advance on costs was paid (following an extension of the deadline), neither the power of attorney nor the other required documents were submitted to the Court within the allotted time.
Law
The Court reiterates the principles governing the admissibility of an appeal. According toArt. 52 of the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (APA), an appeal brief must, among other things, bear the signature of the appellant or their representative. If this or other requirements are not met, the appellate authority may set a short deadline to rectify the filing, failing which it will be declared inadmissible.
Furthermore, in accordance withArt. 11 para. 2 APA, when an authority has doubts regarding the existence of a legal entity or the powers of its representative, it may require the production of a written power of attorney. This requirement stems from the parties' duty to cooperate (Art. 13 APA), the violation of which may lead to the inadmissibility of the procedural act in question.
The Court emphasizes that the principle of speed (Art. 17a IMAC), which is of particular importance in matters of international mutual assistance, justifies expecting an appellant to be able to produce a complete appeal file, including proof of its capacity to act and the authority of its representative, from the very beginning of the proceedings.
Finally, underArt. 63 para. 1 APA, procedural costs are charged to the unsuccessful party, which includes a party whose appeal is declared inadmissible. Art. 63 para. 5 APA allows for costs to be charged to a representative who has acted without valid authority.
Application to the present case
The Complaints Chamber notes that, despite a clear request and an explicit warning regarding the consequences, the appellant's lawyer, , failed to produce either the power of attorney authorizing him to act on behalf of A. LTD, or the documents proving the existence of this company and the authority of its officers.
Payment of the advance on costs does not remedy this fundamental procedural defect. In the absence of a power of attorney, the lawyer is deemed to have acted without valid representation authority. The legal link between the appellant company and its alleged representative has not been established.
Failure to comply with the obligation to produce the required documents within the allotted time constitutes a breach of the duty to cooperate and a failure to meet an essential condition of admissibility. Consequently, the appeal must be declared inadmissible.
Regarding costs, the Court finds that the inadmissibility is directly attributable to the lawyer, who acted without justifying his authority despite the Court's request. It is therefore equitable to charge the court fee personally to him, rather than to the company he claimed to represent.
Outcome
- The appeal is declared inadmissible.
- A court fee of CHF 1,000 is charged personally to the lawyer, Mr. Paolo Tamagni.
- The Federal Criminal Court's treasury is ordered to refund the CHF 5,000 advance on costs paid by A. LTD.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
