Facts
The appellant X. had opened a bank account with Bank Y. AG in 2000 and later, on the bank's recommendation, transferred his accounts to the subsidiary Bank Z. Ltd., based in the Bahamas. He claimed that Bank Z. Ltd. had provided banking services in the business premises of Bank Y. AG in Switzerland without the authorization of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMASA). X. requested FINMASA to initiate a supervisory investigation against Bank Z. Ltd. and, if necessary, to liquidate the de facto bank branch.
FINMASA informed X. that he would have no party status and no right to access the files in any potential administrative proceedings. X. requested the issuance of a appealable ruling, which was rejected by FINMASA. X. appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, which dismissed the appeal. X. then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether the informant has party status in a supervisory proceeding. It found that party status in administrative proceedings under Art. 6 APA belongs to persons whose rights or obligations are affected by the ruling, and to other persons, organizations, or authorities that have a right of appeal against the ruling.
The court further found that the informant, who files a complaint with a supervisory authority or requests supervisory action against a third party, does not thereby acquire party status. Rather, a legitimate interest in the revocation or amendment of the ruling must be proven. The court found in this context that financial market supervision is a public-law, economic police task that serves to protect creditors, investors, and the functioning of financial markets.
The court also…