Decision on the Legality of a House Search and Seizure

Facts

In this case, it was about a criminal complaint filed by Rolex SA for counterfeiting, trademark infringement and fraudulent use of a trademark against [XZ.] and Unknown. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zug then conducted a house search on the premises of [XY.] and in the apartments of [XZ.] and [XX.] , during which various items were seized.

[XZ.] and [XY.] filed a complaint against the legality of the house search and seizure. The Federal Supreme Court now had to decide on these complaints.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the requirements for the house search and seizure were met. There was sufficient suspicion of an offence against [XZ.] and the managing director of [XY.] , as a shipment of apparently counterfeit Rolex accessories addressed to [XZ.] had been intercepted at customs. The relevance of the seized data carriers for the criminal proceedings was also affirmed.

With regard to the reasonableness of the seizure for [XY.] , the Federal…