Facts
The complainant, born in 2010, was accused by the Juvenile Prosecutor’s Office of the Lower District of the Canton of Zurich in juvenile criminal proceedings of alleged assault. By order dated 26 February 2026, the Juvenile Prosecutor’s Office ordered closed inpatient observation pursuant to Art. 9 para. 1 JCLA and provisionally placed the complainant in the Juvenile Unit of Zurich West Prison until 25 March 2026. The order was based on Art. 26 para. 1 lit. d and Art. 29 para. 1 JCrimPC.
The complainant filed an appeal with the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich on 16 March 2026, seeking the annulment of the order and a finding of unlawfulness of his stay in the Juvenile Unit of Zurich West Prison due to a violation of Art. 31 Cst. and Art. 5 ECHR. He also requested his immediate release, compensation for the deprivation of liberty suffered, and an order for inpatient observation. On 23 March 2026, the complainant was transferred to Institution [B.] for continuation of the observation.
By decision dated 1 April 2026, the Higher Court dismissed the appeal. The complainant then filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking the annulment of the Higher Court’s decision and a finding of unlawfulness of his stay in the Juvenile Unit of Zurich West Prison for the period from 26 February 2026 to 23 March 2026. He also requested appropriate compensation for the deprivation of liberty suffered. In procedural terms, he sought the granting of free legal aid and legal representation.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examined the admissibility of the appeal. It found that the appeal against placement in the juvenile unit of a prison was admissible in principle, as it concerned a separately issued interlocutory decision that could cause an irreparable disadvantage (Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a FSCA). The Federal Supreme Court interpreted the complainant’s legal requests in accordance with the principle of trust and concluded that he was challenging the lawfulness of his placement in the Juvenile Unit of Zurich West Prison. Although the complainant no longer had an immediate interest in reviewing the placement after his transfer to Institution [B.] , he alleged a violation of Art. 5 paras. 1 and 3 ECHR and made a corresponding request for a declaratory ruling. Moreover, the issues raised could arise again at any time, which is why the Federal Supreme Court dispensed with the requirement of an immediate interest in legal protection. The appeal was therefore deemed admissible.
On the merits, the Federal Supreme Court examined whether the complainant’s placement in the Juvenile Unit of Zurich West Prison was based on a legal basis. The complainant argued that the order of the Juvenile Prosecutor’s Office of 26 February 2026 provided for inpatient observation pursuant to Art. 9 JCLA, which did not envisage placement in a prison or detention facility. However, the lower court had reinterpreted the placement as a precautionary protective measure pursuant to Art. 5 in conjunction with Art. 15 JCLA. The Federal Supreme Court held that the lower court was authorised under Art. 39 para. 1 JCrimPC to examine the lawfulness of the placement under the heading of a precautionary placement. No violation of the right to be heard was apparent, as the complainant had been given the opportunity to submit comments. The lower court was correct to affirm the requirements for precautionary closed placement pursuant to Art. 5 in conjunction with Art. 15 JCLA, as there was an urgent need for protection of the complainant due to his mental, physical or educational endangerment and immediate intervention was necessary. The proportionality of the measure was also affirmed.
The Federal Supreme Court further examined whether the execution of the placement in the Juvenile Unit of Zurich West Prison was in conformity with federal law. The complainant argued that the prison stay was unconstitutional and contrary to the Convention, as the juvenile unit primarily served the execution of pre-trial detention and security custody and had no therapeutic or educational orientation. The Federal Supreme Court referred to its case law, in particular BGE 148 IV 419, according to which a temporary stay of a juvenile in a prison or detention facility may be permissible as a short-term bridging of an emergency situation, provided this is necessary to find a suitable facility. The lower court was correct to assume that the respondent had made the necessary efforts to find a suitable placement. The complainant’s temporary…