Facts
This decision concerns an appeal for nullity filed by B. against the Public Prosecutor's Office of the canton of Grisons. The central question is whether a balance sheet that has not been submitted to the audit body and has not been approved by the general meeting can constitute valid evidence.
The SCC had to examine the conditions under which a document, even if it was created with the intention of serving as evidence by its author, can be considered a title with evidentiary force. It in particular analyzed the legal requirements and commercial practices regarding the validity of accounting balance sheets.
Considerations
First, the SCC recalled that the fact that the author of a document intended to make it a means of proof is not sufficient to confer this quality on it. It is also necessary that the document be, according to the law or commercial practices, suitable to serve as evidence.
In the present case, the Court found that the disputed balance sheet had not been submitted to the audit body and had not been approved by the general meeting, as required by Art. 698 para. 2 no. 3 CO. According to case law, it is only after this approval that the balance sheet drawn up by the management becomes a document with evidentiary force within the meaning of Art. 963 CO.
However, the Court noted that the absence of signatures at the bottom of the balance sheet was not decisive, provided that it could be established that the balance sheet was drawn up by the…