Propuesta de mejora

a) Evidence-taking as a Criminal Offence

Like other civil-law countries, Switzerland regards the taking of evidence as a judicial act re-served to judicial authorities.¹²⁶ Compared to other civil-law countries, however, Switzerland went a step further by inserting in the 1930s’ Article 271 in its Criminal Code.¹²⁷ This provi-sion prohibits acts on Swiss territory for the benefit of a foreign government in order to

tion in the making of interior jurisdictional measuresʼ in Gilles P (ed) Transnationales Prozeßrecht – Transna-tional Aspects of Procedural Law 199594.

123 Geimer E Internationale Beweisaufnahme 1998 12, 15; Müller A Grenzüberschreitende Beweisaufnahme im Europäischen Justizraum 2004 22; Oxman BH ʻThe Choice between Direct Discovery and Other Means of Obtaining Evidence Abroad: The Impact of the Hague Conventionʼ 1982-1983 University of Miami Law Re-view 762.

124 Oxman BH ʻThe Choice between Direct Discovery and Other Means of Obtaining Evidence Abroad: The Im-pact of the Hague Conventionʼ 1982-1983 University of Miami Law Review 762.

125 See in this regard also Obi-Okoye A Essays on Civil Proceedings Volume One 1986 314, who emphasises that a court located outside Nigeria is not bound to go through the local high court to obtain evidence in the latter’s jurisdiction. Rather, the court is, according to Obi-Okoye, at liberty to appoint any person it desires as an ex-aminer, and so long as the witness is willing to attend and give evidence, the examination may be conducted without the intervention of the said high court.

126 Frei L ʻThe Service of Process and the Taking of Evidence on Behalf of U.S. Proceedings – the Problem of Granting Assistanceʼ 1983 Wirtschaft und Recht 196; Government of Switzerland ʻBrief of Government of Switzerland as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitionersʼ 1986 International Legal Materials 1551, 1553;

Volken P ʻVor Art. 11ʼ in Girsberger A et al (eds) Zürcher Kommentar zum IPRG 2004 143 n. 17.

127 Of 21 December 1937, SR 311.0.

32

protect the sovereignty of Switzerland.¹²⁸ Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code reads as follows:¹²⁹

“Any person who carries out activities on behalf of a foreign state on Swiss territory without lawful authority, where such activities are the responsibility of a public authority or public official, (...), any person who encourages such activities shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty, or in serious cases to a custodial sentence of not less than one year.”

The notion of “activities on behalf of a foreign state” is quite broad. It is not only activities carried out by an authority or a public official that fall within this notion, but also the activities of a private individual. Under Swiss law, the acts of authorities, public officials and private in-dividuals constitute activities in the sense of Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code if they can first be characterised as activities of state in view of their nature or function, and, second, if the activities benefit a foreign governmental, judiciary or legislative body.¹³⁰A typical activity under Article 271(1) is the taking of evidence, such as questioning witnesses or inspecting documents located in Switzerland, as such an act is, from a Swiss perspective, entrusted to public officials. Cross-border taking of evidence furthermore assists the trial court outside Switzerland for whose benefit the evidence is taken on Swiss soil. In this context, the Swiss Federal Court held that any activities performed in the interest of a foreign state or its authori-ties are considered, under Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code, as activiauthori-ties that benefit foreign states. This, according to the said court, is particularly true with regard to the enforce-ment of law by court judgenforce-ments which, in every state, is regarded as one of the major duties of

128 Federal Office of Justice Bericht des Bundesamtes für Justiz zu Rechtsfragen im Zusammenhang mit der Zu-sammenarbeit mit ausländischen Behörden (Amtshilfe, Rechtshilfe, Souveränitätsschutz) (14 March 2011) http://www.bj.admin.ch/content/dam/data/sicherheit/rechtshilfe/ber-auslandszusammenarbeit-d.pdf20 (date of use: 31 January 2013); decision of the Swiss Federal Court 6B_402/2008 of 6.11.2008 consideration 2.3.2.

129 For the (unofficial) English translation of the Swiss Criminal Code, see http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/3/311.0.en.pdf (date of use: 31 January 2013).

130 BGE 114 IV 130 consideration 2.a; BGE 65 I 43 consideration 2; decision of the Swiss Federal Court 6B_402/2008 of 6.11.2008 consideration 2.3.2; VPB 66 (2002) no. 128 consideration 6; VPB 61 (1997) no. 82 consideration III.1; Schramm D ʻEntwicklungen bei der Strafbarkeit von privaten Zeugenbefragungen in der Schweiz durch Anwälte für ausländische Verfahrenʼ 2006 Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 491 et seq.; Hopf T ʻArt.

271ʼ in Niggli MA and Wiprächtiger H (eds) Basler Kommentar Strafrecht II Art. 111-392 StGB 2007 1916 n.

7. For criticism regarding BGE 114 IV 130, see Schramm D ʻEntwicklungen bei der Strafbarkeit von privaten Zeugenbefragungen in der Schweiz durch Anwälte für ausländische Verfahrenʼ 2006 Aktuelle Juristische Pra-xis 494 et seq.; Schultz H ʻDie strafrechtliche Rechtsprechung des Bger 1988ʼ 1990 Zeitschrift des Bernischen Juristenvereins 25 et seq.; Delnon V and Rüdi B ʻStrafbare Beweisführungʼ 1998 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 330; ZR 104 (2005) no. 62.

33

state. The gathering of evidence ultimately serves such enforcement, as it forms an essential part of the adjudicative process.¹³¹

Under Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code, it is not only irrelevant whether the evi-dence-taking is conducted by an authority or by a private individual, but also whether the latter was requested to obtain evidence on Swiss territory by a court abroad or a litigant in civil pro-ceedings before such court.¹³² A counsel who, for instance, questions a non-party witness in Switzerland on behalf of his client for the benefit of foreign civil proceedings, violates Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code. In other words, it is immaterial whether in the state where the said proceedings are pending, the evidence-gathering is considered as a purely private mat-ter.¹³³ Article 271(1) also applies, irrespective of whether the testimony of the witness exam-ined on Swiss soil will directly (by submitting the transcript of the witness examination to the court outside Switzerland) or indirectly (by a testimony of the person who questioned the wit-ness in Switzerland) be introduced into the foreign proceedings.¹³⁴ Moreover, it is also irrele-vant under Article 271(1) whether the authority or the private individual taking the evidence uses measures of compulsion or not.¹³⁵

Activities of a litigant or his counsel, that merely serve to assess the chances of success of a lawsuit or to prepare the latter, do not constitute “activities on behalf of a foreign state” and thus do not fall under Article 271(1), provided the respective information will later on not be used as evidence in the foreign civil proceedings. Having said this, private research or informal investigations, such as conversations with potential non-party witnesses, do not, as a general

131 BGE 114 IV 132 consideration 3.b; decision of the Swiss Federal Court 9X.1/1999 of 7.7.2000; VPB 61 (1997) no. 82 consideration III.1; Schramm D ʻEntwicklungen bei der Strafbarkeit von privaten Zeugenbefra-gungen in der Schweiz durch Anwälte für ausländische Verfahrenʼ 2006 Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 492;

Markees C ʻDie Vornahme von Prozeßhandlungen auf schweizerischem Gebiet zuhanden eines ausländischen Verfahrens im Lichte des Art. 271 StGBʼ 1969 Schweizerische Juristenzeitung 35.

132 Honegger PC Amerikanische Offenlegungspflichten in Konflikt mit schweizerischen Geheimhaltungspflichten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtshilfe bei Steuerhinterziehungen und Insidergeschäften 1986 137;

Trechsel S and Vest H ʻArt. 271ʼ in Trechsel S and Pieth M (eds) Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch Praxis-kommentar 2013 1280 n. 2.

133 Hopf T ʻArt. 271ʼ in Niggli MA and Wiprächtiger H (eds) Basler Kommentar Strafrecht II Art. 111-392 StGB 2007 1921 n. 15; Markees C ʻDie Vornahme von Prozeßhandlungen auf schweizerischem Gebiet zuhanden ei-nes ausländischen Verfahrens im Lichte des Art. 271 StGBʼ 1969 Schweizerische Juristenzeitung 35; Cassani U ʻ“Pretrial Discovery” sur sol suisse et protection pėnale de la souverainetė territoriale’ 1992 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Finanzmarktrecht 13; Trechsel S and Vest H ʻArt. 271ʼ in Trechsel S and Pieth M (eds) Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch Praxiskommentar 2013 1280 n. 2.

134 Schramm D ʻEntwicklungen bei der Strafbarkeit von privaten Zeugenbefragungen in der Schweiz durch An-wälte für ausländische Verfahrenʼ 2006 Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 492.

135 BGE 114 IV 131 et seq.; decision of the Swiss Federal Court 9X.1/1999 of 7.7.2000 consideration 6.b;

Markees C ʻDie Vornahme von Prozeßhandlungen auf schweizerischem Gebiet zuhanden eines ausländischen Verfahrens im Lichte des Art. 271 StGBʼ 1969 Schweizerische Juristenzeitung 35; Trechsel S and Vest H ʻArt.

271ʼ in Trechsel S and Pieth M (eds) Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch Praxiskommentar 2013 1280 n. 2.

34

principle, infringe Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code.¹³⁶ In practice, to distinguish whether an activity falls under the said provision or merely constitutes a preparatory measure exempt from punishment can be challenging and has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.¹³⁷ In order to avoid any risk of criminal prosecution under Article 271(1), counsel and parties in proceedings pending outside Switzerland are advised to refrain from taking any evidence on Swiss soil or, at least, to consult a Swiss lawyer before taking action in Switzerland to ensure that the intended activity does not infringe the said provision.

The voluntary presentation of documents to a court located abroad by a litigant domiciled in Switzerland does not constitute a violation of Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code. Such transmission is not regarded as an act reserved to an authority, but as a matter for the parties.¹³⁸ Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code requires that the activity on behalf of a foreign state is performed on Swiss soil. It is, however, not necessary that the entire act be conducted in

136 BGE 132 IV 132 consideration 2.d; Federal Office of Justice Bericht des Bundesamtes für Justiz zu Rechtsfra-gen im Zusammenhang mit der Zusammenarbeit mit ausländischen Behörden (Amtshilfe, Rechtshilfe, Souve-ränitätsschutz) (14 March 2011) http://www.bj.admin.ch/content/dam/data/sicherheit/rechtshilfe/ber-auslandszusammenarbeit-d.pdf 29 (date of use: 31 January 2013); Schramm D ʻEntwicklungen bei der Straf-barkeit von privaten Zeugenbefragungen in der Schweiz durch Anwälte für ausländische Verfahrenʼ 2006 Ak-tuelle Juristische Praxis 492; Honegger PC Amerikanische Offenlegungspflichten in Konflikt mit schweizeri-schen Geheimhaltungspflichten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtshilfe bei Steuerhinterziehungen und Insidergeschäften 1986 137; Frei L ʻDiscovery, Secrecy and International Mutual Assistance in Civil Mat-tersʼ in Zäch R (ed) Litigation of Business Matters in the United States and International Mutual Assistance 1984 192 et seq.; Zulauf U ʻKorruption mit dem Ausland: Verrat an der Schweiz? Gedanken zu den Schweizer Verbotsgesetzen (“Blocking Statutes”) von Art. 271 und 273 StGB und Art. 47 BankGʼ in Waldburger R et al (eds) Wirtschaftsrecht zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts, Festschrift für Peter Nobel zum 60. Geburtstag 2005 1085; Markees C ʻDie Vornahme von Prozeßhandlungen auf schweizerischem Gebiet zuhanden eines auslän-dischen Verfahrens im Lichte des Art. 271 StGBʼ 1969 Schweizerische Juristenzeitung 36.

137 For Swiss prosecution authorities, it may be difficult to assess whether information resulting from private or informal researches were directly used in proceedings before a trial court. For examples in this regard, see Hopf T ʻArt. 271ʼ in Niggli MA and Wiprächtiger H (eds) Basler Kommentar Strafrecht II Art. 111-392 StGB 2007 1921 n. 15; Federal Office of Justice Bericht des Bundesamtes für Justiz zu Rechtsfragen im Zusammen-hang mit der Zusammenarbeit mit ausländischen Behörden (Amtshilfe, Rechtshilfe, Souveränitätsschutz) (14 March 2011) http://www.bj.admin.ch/content/dam/data/sicherheit/rechtshilfe/ber-auslandszusammenarbeit-d.pdf 29 (date of use: 31 January 2013). See also Cassani U ʻ“Pretrial Discovery” sur sol suisse et protection pėnale de la souverainetė territoriale’ 1992 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Finanzmarktrecht 14 who opines that all preparatory measures shall fall under Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code, irre-spective of whether the information gained from such measures is used in proceedings before the trial court or not.

138 In BGE 114 IV 131 consideration 2.c in fine, the Swiss Federal Court held that in contrast to hearing wit-nesses, the submission of documents is a party measure not requiring official action in the sense of Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code. In VBP 61.82 consideration III.1, however, the Swiss Federal Council opined in a case, where two defendants domiciled in Switzerland were ordered by a U.S. court to hand over certain documents, that such transmission is about aiding the taking of evidence by a judge of a foreign coun-try and that it hence violates the aforesaid provision. In this context, it has to be noted that the opinion of the Swiss Federal Council is merely the view of the executive and is thus not binding on any judicial authority.

See also Hopf T ʻArt. 271ʼ in Niggli MA and Wiprächtiger H (eds) Basler Kommentar Strafrecht II Art. 111-392 StGB 2007 1922 n. 15 and Frei L ʻDiscovery, Secrecy and International Mutual Assistance in Civil Mat-tersʼ in Zäch R (ed) Litigation of Business Matters in the United States and International Mutual Assistance 1984 193 who share the opinion of the Swiss Federal Court.

35

Switzerland, but it suffices that it partly take place on Swiss territory.¹³⁹ It goes without saying that in cases where the questioning of a witness or the inspection of documents occurs entirely outside Switzerland, Article 271(1) does not apply. Counsel or parties in proceedings before a court located abroad may thus, for instance, agree with a non-party witness domiciled in Swit-zerland to question the latter outside of SwitSwit-zerland, that is, in the nearest country that allows the examination of witnesses by a counsel or litigant¹⁴⁰ and so avoid criminal prosecution un-der Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code. The same holds true for an inspection of docu-ments, provided the latter are reviewed outside Switzerland.¹⁴¹

b) Authorisation under Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code

Courts or private individuals wishing to perform acts falling under Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code require a waiver from the competent Swiss authority.¹⁴² Permission from the individual affected by the act does not suffice, as only states can relinquish their sovereignty.¹⁴³ Where a waiver is not granted, the said courts or private individuals are not allowed to perform the relevant acts on Swiss territory, but have to seek international judicial assistance.¹⁴⁴

Permissions under Article 271(1) are only given in exceptional cases. A waiver may be granted where international judicial assistance is theoretically feasible, that is, where there are no grounds for refusal, and where it appears practically impossible, or even absurd, to request the relevant Swiss authority for judicial assistance.¹⁴⁵ When determining whether permission under

139 It is, for instance, sufficient, if the examination of the witness took place in Switzerland, while the signing of the transcript by the witness, however, occurred abroad, Hopf T ʻArt. 271ʼ in Niggli MA and Wiprächtiger H (eds) Basler Kommentar Strafrecht II Art. 111-392 StGB 2007 1924 n. 17: Honegger PC Amerikanische Offen-legungspflichten in Konflikt mit schweizerischen Geheimhaltungspflichten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtshilfe bei Steuerhinterziehungen und Insidergeschäften 1986 138.

140 For instance Germany.

141 Honegger PC Amerikanische Offenlegungspflichten in Konflikt mit schweizerischen Geheimhaltungspflichten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtshilfe bei Steuerhinterziehungen und Insidergeschäften 1986 138.

142 See Article 31(1) of the Government and Administrative Ordinance of 25 November 1998 (“Regierungs- und Verwaltungsverordnung”, SR 172.010.1), http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/as/1999/1258.pdf (date of use: 31 Janu-ary 2013). Authorisations are granted by one of the seven Federal Departments and the Federal Chancellery.

143 BGE 65 I 46 consideration 4.

144 For international judicial assistance, see para. V. below.

145 The latter is, for instance, the case where a court located abroad requests an on-site inspection in Switzerland.

See Federal Office of Justice International Judicial Assistance in Civil Matters Guidelines (3rd ed 2003; last updated in July 2005) http://www.rhf.admin.ch/etc/medialib/data/rhf.Par.0064.File.tmp/wegl-ziv-e.pdf 35 (date of use: 31 January 2013). These guidelines are the official guide on international judicial assistance in civil matters drafted by the Federal Office of Justice, that is, the federal authority responsible for international judicial assistance in Switzerland. Currently, the Federal Office of Justice is busy revising the guidelines. Un-fortunately, at the time this thesis was printed (14 February 2013), the newly updated version was not yet available. See furthermore also VPB 61 (1997) no. 82 consideration III.2, III.3; Frei L ʻDiscovery, Secrecy and International Mutual Assistance in Civil Mattersʼ in Zäch R (ed) Litigation of Business Matters in the United States and International Mutual Assistance 1984 192; Zulauf U ʻKorruption mit dem Ausland: Verrat an der Schweiz? Gedanken zu den Schweizer Verbotsgesetzen (“Blocking Statutes”) von Art. 271 und 273 StGB und

36

Article 271(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code shall be granted or not, the competent authorities have to balance the various interests involved, namely the protection of Swiss sovereignty, the cooperation with the relevant authorities outside Switzerland, and the interests of individuals affected by the permission.¹⁴⁶

c) Protection of Foreign Sovereignty under Article 299(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code Under Swiss law, not only the encroachment on Swiss sovereignty constitutes a criminal of-fence, but also that of a foreign state. Article 299(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code states the fol-lowing:

“Any person who violates the territorial sovereignty of a foreign state, in par-ticular by conducting official activities without authorisation on foreign terri-tory (...), shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.”¹⁴⁷

This provision penalises Swiss public officials who perform official acts for the benefit of Switzerland on foreign territory. The scholarly doctrine in Switzerland is ambiguous on wheth-er Article 299(1) mwheth-erely punishes acts pwheth-erformed by authorities or public officials, or also those carried out by private individuals. To date, the Swiss Federal Court has not yet dealt, at least not in a published decision, with this issue. In any event, there is no doubt that, for in-stance, the questioning of witnesses or the inspection of documents by a Swiss judge abroad infringe Article 299(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code, provided the foreign state regards such ac-tivities as judicial acts.¹⁴⁸

V. International Judicial Assistance in Taking of Evidence in Civil and Commercial