Facts
The Federal Court had to deal with two complaints against decisions of the Cantonal Court of Glarus, Coercive Measures Court. The complaints were directed against the unsealing of documents and data carriers that had been secured in the context of a criminal proceeding against [A.A.] for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and procuring a false document. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Glarus had submitted three requests for unsealing of the secured documents and data carriers. [A.A.] and [B.A.] had requested access to the records to be unsealed, but this was rejected.
The complainants alleged a violation of their right to be heard and insufficient reasoning of the decisions. They requested the annulment of the contested decisions and the remittal of the case to the lower court for re-examination.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the complaints and came to the conclusion that the requirements for a complaint in criminal matters were met. It found that the contested decisions did not meet the requirements of the duty to provide reasons, as the description of the records to be released or withheld was not sufficient.
The court found that the lower court had considered the secrets invoked by Complainant 1 to be sufficiently substantiated and, on that basis, had carried out an extensive triage. However, it found that the complainants were right to allege that the description of the records to be released or withheld was not sufficient to verify…