Facts
In this case, the public prosecutor's office in Solothurn is conducting a criminal investigation against a married couple for attempted intentional homicide or serious bodily harm to the detriment of their common daughter. In the course of this investigation, the communication of the husband was monitored, and it was found that the husband's lawyer, [A.] , had multiple contacts with the wife, [B.B.] , and may have provided her with confidential information. As a result, the public prosecutor's office opened criminal proceedings against [A.] on suspicion of aiding and abetting.
In these proceedings against [A.] , the public prosecutor's office applied to the detention court for permission to use all relevant findings that had resulted from the monitoring of the husband's communication. The detention court granted this permission. [A.] appealed against this decision to the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed.
Considerations
The Federal Court concluded that the communication between [A.] and [B.B.] is not protected by the confidentiality of the legal profession under Art. 271 para. 3 CrimPC. This is because [A.] was not the lawyer of [B.B.] , but only of her husband. Thus, there was no special relationship of trust between [A.] and [B.B.] within the meaning of the materials on Art. 271 para. 3 CrimPC. Consequently, the public prosecutor's office was allowed to use the findings from the monitoring of the communication between [A.] and [B.B.] …