TPF, 19.08.2026, RR.2026.36, RP.2026.23
Facts
As part of a Belgian criminal proceeding targeting A., among others, for forgery of documents, breach of trust, fraud, money laundering, theft, and participation in a criminal organization, the Belgian authorities requested the seizure of real estate belonging to the individual in Switzerland on June 13, 2012. In 2013, the Aargau Public Prosecutor's Office ordered a restriction on the right to dispose of a property, which was maintained until a final decision on the assets was reached. In February 2024, it authorized the sale of the property while seizing the proceeds of CHF 134,228.65. A 2018 Belgian judgment had sentenced A. to a three-year custodial sentence, partially suspended, as well as a fine and significant confiscations (recitals 1.4 and 3.1).
In July 2025, the Baden District Court refused to consider the request for exequatur of the Belgian judgment, primarily due to uncertainties regarding its final and enforceable nature. A. repeatedly demanded the release of the funds, denouncing the excessive duration of the proceedings and its financial consequences. On February 17, 2026, the Public Prosecutor's Office explicitly informed the individual that they could request a formal decision subject to appeal. A. nevertheless filed a complaint with the authority for unjustified delay, which was forwarded to the Federal Criminal Court, while simultaneously requesting the immediate lifting of the seizure (recitals 2.1 and 3.1).
Law
Judicial assistance between Switzerland and Belgium is primarily governed by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, its Second Additional Protocol, and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement. The IMAC and the OIMAC apply subsidiarily, subject to the principle of favor and compliance with fundamental rights (recitals 1.1 and 1.2).
According toArt. 80eandArt. 80h IMAC, decisions regarding seizure may be challenged by those directly affected. The account holder may request the lifting of the freeze at any time. However, an appeal generally requires an appealable decision, as the Complaints Chamber cannot rule as a court of first instance on a request for the release of assets (recitals 1.3, 1.4, and 2.1).
The Art. 17a para. 3 IMACandArt. 46a APA allow for appeals against a denial of justice or an unjustified delay. A denial of justice occurs when an authority unduly refuses to rule, while an unjustified delay implies inaction exceeding a reasonable timeframe. The litigant must, however, have a right to a decision and must have previously requested the intervention of the competent authority (recitals 1.5 and 2.2).
Application to the specific case
The Court notes that no recent appealable decision concerned the maintenance of the seizure. Despite the express invitation from the Public Prosecutor's Office, A. had not formally requested a new decision before filing the complaint. The request for the immediate lifting of the freeze was therefore inadmissible, as there was no subject matter for the appeal (recitals 2.1 and 3.1).
No unjustified delay could be established either, as the Public Prosecutor's Office had declared itself willing to issue a formal decision. It was up to A. to utilize this path first. A complaint for denial of justice did not allow for the direct release of the funds. A new request for a decision remained possible, however, if the seizure persisted (recitals 3.1 and 3.2).
Legal aid was also refused, as the appeal was devoid of any chance of success within the meaning of Art. 65 APA (recital 3.3).
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court declares the appeal inadmissible, without examining the proportionality of the seizure on its merits or ordering the restitution of the CHF 134,228.65. Legal aid is refused, and court costs of CHF 1,000 are charged to A., who had expressly maintained the appeal (recitals 3.1, 3.3, and 4).