Facts
The appellant [S.] is accused in the Netherlands of forgery of documents, fraud, exploitation of knowledge of confidential facts, and other offenses. In the Canton of Zurich, criminal proceedings were also initiated against [S.] and other persons for breach of trust in business. The Swiss authorities have been repeatedly requested for mutual legal assistance in this matter, and various decisions to enter into the proceedings have been issued.
[S.] requested the issuance of a final decision pursuant to Art. 80d IMAC and the granting of full access to the files of the mutual legal assistance proceedings. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich did not enter into the appeal against the denial of justice by [S.] , as it was filed late.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the oral information provided by the District Attorney's Office to the legal representative of [S.] , stating that no final decision would be issued, did not constitute a binding "negative decision". Therefore, [S.] could still file the appeal against the denial of justice in a timely manner.
However, [S.] is not entitled to the issuance of a final decision, as he does not qualify as an "entitled person" within the meaning of Art. 80b para. 1 IMAC. The police interrogation of [S.] did not constitute a mutual legal assistance measure with a coercive character, so he cannot derive any…