TPF, 07.21.2026, RR.2026.79
Facts
As part of criminal proceedings for arms trafficking and participation in a criminal organization, the Belgian authorities submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland (Fact A).
On June 23, 2026, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of St. Gallen, acting as the executing authority, issued an admissibility and interlocutory decision.
It ordered the search of the premises of A. AG and the seizure of a Cadillac Escalade vehicle (Fact A).
On July 3, 2026, A. AG (hereinafter: the appellant) filed an appeal with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court against this seizure decision.
It seeks the lifting of the seizure and the immediate return of the vehicle, arguing that it acquired the vehicle in good faith through a leasing contract and that the seizure is causing it significant economic harm (Fact B, consid. 2.3).
Law
Mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and Belgium is governed by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA) and the Schengen agreements, supplemented by Swiss law (IMAC) (consid. 1.1 and 1.2).
In principle, an appeal is only possible against the final decision that concludes the mutual assistance proceedings (Art. 80e para. 1 IMAC).
A separate appeal against an interlocutory decision, such as a seizure order, is only admissible in exceptional cases (consid. 2.2).
The condition for admissibility is that the measure must cause immediate and irreparable harm (Art. 80e para. 2 let. a IMAC).
According to the established case law of the Federal Supreme Court, such harm is only recognized in restrictive circumstances.
The mere deprivation of the use of an asset or general economic damage is not sufficient.
The appellant must concretely demonstrate the existence of serious and definitive harm, such as the imminent threat of bankruptcy, the breach of essential contractual obligations, or the revocation of an administrative license (consid. 2.2).
Application to the specific case
The decision to seize the vehicle is an interlocutory decision, which can only be challenged separately if the appellant demonstrates the existence of immediate and irreparable harm (consid. 2.4).
The appellant merely invokes, in general terms, "significant economic harm" due to the fact that it must continue to pay leasing installments without being able to use the vehicle (consid. 2.3).
The Court finds this argument insufficient.
Any seizure measure entails a deprivation of use and potentially economic damage.
A general allegation of economic harm is not enough to meet the strict requirements of case law for establishing irreparable harm within the meaning of Art. 80e para. 2 IMAC (consid. 2.4).
As the appellant has not demonstrated the existence of immediate and irreparable harm, the admissibility requirement for an appeal against the interlocutory decision of attachment has not been met (recital 2.4).
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber does not consider the appeal (operative part 1).
The court costs, set at CHF 1,000, are to be borne by the appellant (operative part 2, recital 3).