Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office II at the Berlin Regional Court is conducting an investigation on suspicion of fraud against various persons. In the context of this proceeding, the German authorities requested the Swiss authorities to secure documents from lawyer X. The District Attorney's Office IV for the Canton of Zurich subsequently conducted a search of X.'s premises, seized a data tape ("streamer tape") and sealed it. X. appealed against the unsealing and search of the data tape. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich did not enter into the appeal, as it was an interim decision in the legal assistance proceedings, against which appeals are only admissible in very narrow exceptional cases according to Art. 80e IMAC. X. then filed an administrative court appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that the unsealing decision does constitute an interference with attorney-client privilege, as attorney correspondence is also stored on the "streamer tape". However, the list of cases in which an interim decision can be appealed independently in Art. 80e para. 1 lit. b IMAC is exhaustive. An exception can only be made if a substantively correct decision, aimed at a result satisfactory in view of the values of the…