Facts
The [Z. AG] (complainant) requested the sealing of account documents and records that had been seized in the context of a criminal investigation against [X.] on suspicion of professional fraud and violations of the UCA. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of St. Gallen filed a request for unsealing, which was approved by the Coercive Measures Court of the Canton of St. Gallen. The complainant appealed to the Federal Court and requested the reversal of the decision.
The complainant argued that the lower court had approved the unsealing without effective triage, which contradicts the practice of the Federal Court. It also claimed that there was no sufficient suspicion against the accused and that the contested decision violated the right to be heard, the prohibition of arbitrariness and denial of justice, the protection of business secrets and personality rights, the rights of defense, and the principle of proportionality.
Considerations
The Federal Court first examined whether the complaint was admissible. It found that the lower court had decided as the sole cantonal instance and that the complainant was not generally authorized to protect the rights of uninvolved third parties in its own name.
Then, the Federal Court examined whether the lower court had conducted the unsealing procedure in a manner contrary to federal law. It found that the lower court had correctly conducted the decision-making process and that the complainant had not…