Facts
The appellant [A.] was arrested on 20 November 2018 and has been in custody ever since. In connection with his arrest, a Porsche Cayenne was seized. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Basel-Stadt ordered the premature realization of the car and the substitute seizure of the net proceeds on 15 March 2019. The appellant appealed against this order to the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Basel-Stadt, which dismissed his appeal and imposed the procedural costs on him.
The appellant applied to the Federal Court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and to refrain from the premature realization of the car. He argued that the lower court should also have considered his appeal with regard to the seizure and return of the car to his father.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined its jurisdiction and the further requirements for entering into the matter of its own motion and with free cognition. It found that the appellant has a legally protected interest in the annulment or modification of the contested decision, as the disputed premature realization could result in an irreparable prejudice for him.
The appellant complained that the lower court should also have considered his appeal with regard to the seizure and return of the car to his father. The Federal Court rejected this complaint, as the seizure of the vehicle had already taken place on 20 November 2018 and remained unchallenged. The lower court therefore only had to consider the question of premature realization.
The appellant further complained that the premature realization of the seized car was inadmissible. The Federal Court also rejected this complaint, as the requirements of Art. 266 para. 5 CrimPC for the premature realization of the car are met. The appellant argued that the premature realization of the car was…