Facts
This criminal proceeding concerned the question of whether findings from secret surveillance, which was originally ordered against other persons, may also be used against the complainant [A.] (so-called chance findings). The public prosecutor's office had applied to the compulsory measures court for approval to use these chance findings in the criminal proceedings against [A.] . The compulsory measures court granted the approval, whereupon [A.] filed a complaint.
Considerations
In its decision, the FSCA dealt with the question of whether the public prosecutor's office had initiated the approval procedure in due time pursuant to Art. 278 para. 3 CrimPC. The complainant argued that the public prosecutor's office had filed the application too late, as it had already confronted him with the surveillance results in April 2018. However, the FSCA saw it differently. It stated that Art. 278 para. 3 CrimPC is indeed a procedural provision, but its violation does not necessarily lead to the inadmissibility of the evidence. The decisive factor is that the chance finding was not used before its approval. Since this was the case in the present case, the FSCA considered the delayed initiation of the…