FPC, 17.02.2026, RR.2026.7, RR.2026.8, RR.2026.9, RP.2026.2, RP.2026.3, RP.2026.4
Facts
As part of criminal proceedings for money laundering and the illicit export of cultural property, Italian judicial authorities submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland. The proceedings concern an individual (D.) suspected of having illegally appropriated a painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci. The request included the seizure of this artwork.
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Ticino (MP-TI) complied with the request and ordered the seizure of the painting. Three individuals (A., B., and C.), claiming to be creditors of D. for a total amount of 4.4 million euros, appealed this seizure decision to the Federal Criminal Court, requesting its annulment and the granting of suspensive effect.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Criminal Court reiterates the admissibility requirements for an appeal against an interlocutory decision in matters of international mutual legal assistance, such as the seizure of assets (Art. 80e para. 2 let. a of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters [IMAC]).
Two cumulative conditions must be met:
- Standing to appeal (Art. 80h let. b IMAC): The appellant must be personally and directly affected by the assistance measure. According to case law, this implies being directly subject to a coercive measure. For a seizure, the decisive criterion is effective control over the object at the time of the measure. A mere indirect economic interest, such as that of a creditor of the owner of the seized object, is insufficient.
- Immediate and irreparable prejudice (Art. 80e para. 2 IMAC): The appellant must demonstrate that the decision causes them prejudice that could not be remedied by a favorable final decision. They must prove, for example, that the seizure prevents them from meeting their own due financial obligations or puts them at risk of bankruptcy. A mere assertion of prejudice, without supporting documentation regarding their financial situation, is insufficient to satisfy this requirement.
Application to the case at hand
The Court examines the admissibility of the appeal from two perspectives.
First, it analyzes the standing of the complainants. It finds that the appellants are merely creditors of the person targeted by the criminal proceedings in Italy. They hold no real rights (such as ownership) nor possession of the painting. Their interest is purely economic and indirect: they hope to be repaid through the future sale of the artwork. As they are not directly affected by the seizure measure, they lack standing to appeal.
Second, and in the alternative, the Court examines the existence of immediate and irreparable prejudice. It notes that the appellants provided no evidence of their financial situation. They failed to demonstrate that their debtor's inability to sell the painting concretely prevented them from meeting their own financial commitments. The Court emphasizes that the seizure is a provisional measure and that the appellants' argument is premature. Consequently, the condition of immediate and irreparable prejudice is not met.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court has declared the appeal inadmissible due to the plaintiffs' lack of standing and failure to demonstrate immediate and irreparable harm. The request for a stay of execution is declared moot, and the costs of the proceedings are to be borne by the appellants.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
