Supervision, criticism and the crisis of 2020

Who supervises the court

The Federal Criminal Court is independent in its judicial activity and subject to two forms of supervision over its administration. The Federal Supreme Court exercises administrative supervision over the lower federal courts, including the Federal Criminal Court.¹ The Federal Assembly exercises high supervision over the federal courts and the OAG through its Supervisory Committees and Finance Committees, approves the courts' budgets and annual reports, and elects the judges through the United Federal Assembly on the proposal of the Judicial Committee.² In its report for 2025 the court described its contacts with the supervisory bodies of the Federal Supreme Court as consistently positive.³ The relationship was not always so harmonious.

The crisis of 2020

In early 2020 the Federal Criminal Court became the subject of press reports about its internal working climate. They concerned allegations of sexist remarks, bullying, conflicts among judges and administrative practices at the court. The Administrative Commission of the Federal Supreme Court opened a supervisory inquiry and submitted its report on 5 April 2020, and its president informed the plenary court of the result on 20 April 2020. The report made seven recommendations, which concerned among other things the handling of absences and salary increases, the reimbursement of judges' expenses, the timely disclosure of personal relationships between judges and staff, and respectful treatment of colleagues and staff. On 27 May 2020 the plenary court decided to end the employment of its secretary general. In July 2020 a majority of fifteen judges from all language regions rejected the allegations of bullying and sexism in a letter to the supervisory authority, while the court announced an external analysis of those allegations and the use of a mediator.⁴ The Supervisory Committees of the Federal Assembly then examined both the situation at the court and the way in which the Federal Supreme Court had exercised its supervision, including questions about the limits of administrative supervision over another court and about recommendations concerning individual judges.⁵ In their report of 20 September 2022 the Supervisory Committees recorded a chronic shortage of resources at the court, a finding that the court's annual report for 2025 still cites.⁶ The episode showed that the supervisory structure created in 2000 had never been tested under pressure. It also showed that a small court in which judges work closely together for many years is vulnerable to personal conflicts that would be diluted in a larger institution.

The OAG and the end of the Lauber era

In the same year the federal prosecution service passed through the most serious crisis in its modern history. The Attorney General, Michael Lauber, had met the president of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, on several occasions while the OAG was conducting numerous proceedings connected with football, and had not documented the meetings. In May 2019 the supervisory authority of the OAG opened a disciplinary investigation. On 2 March 2020 it reduced his salary by 8 per cent for one year, finding that he had shown a mistaken understanding of his professional role. The Federal Administrative Court partly upheld Lauber's appeal in July 2020 but confirmed the principal findings. Lauber announced his resignation on 24 July 2020 and left office on 31 August 2020. Proceedings for his removal from office, which the Judicial Committee of the Federal Assembly had opened, thereby became moot.⁷ An extraordinary federal prosecutor appointed to investigate the meetings opened criminal proceedings against Lauber, Infantino and others. They were discontinued in October 2023, the investigation having dispelled the suspicions.⁸ Lauber and Infantino were therefore not convicted of any offence. The affair nevertheless had consequences for the Federal Criminal Court. The collapse of the trial concerning the 2006 World Cup in April 2020, the acquittal of Blatter and Platini in 2022 and their confirmation on appeal in 2025 meant that the largest complex of proceedings conducted by the OAG in the 2010s produced few convictions in Bellinzona. Under Stefan Blättler, in office since January 2022, the OAG has concentrated its resources and, as the cases in this chapter show, brought a series of corporate and corruption cases to judgment.

Notes

1. Geschäftsbericht 2025 (above), section on supervision. BGG, Art. 1(2). ↩
2. Federal Constitution of 18 April 1999 (Cst.), SR 101, Art. 169(1), https://www.droit-bilingue.ch/de-it/1/10/101-169-203.html; ParlA, Art. 26(1) (high supervision) and Art. 40a(1) (Judicial Committee), https://www.droit-bilingue.ch/de-it/1/17/171.10-26-34.html and https://www.droit-bilingue.ch/de-it/1/17/171.10-40a-49.html. ↩
3. Geschäftsbericht 2025 (above). ↩
4. Federal Criminal Court, press releases "Aufsichtsbericht zu Vorkommnissen am Bundesstrafgericht", 20 April 2020, https://www.bstger.ch/de/media/comunicati-stampa/2020/2020-04-20/1060.html; "Untersuchungsbericht der Verwaltungskommission des Bundesgerichts", 29 May 2020, https://www.bstger.ch/de/media/comunicati-stampa/2020/2020-05-29/1072.html (report of 5 April 2020, seven recommendations, plenary decision of 27 May 2020); "Bundesstrafgericht Bellinzona: Verbesserung der Zusammenarbeit im Richterplenum", 22 July 2020, https://www.bstger.ch/de/media/comunicati-stampa/2020/2020-07-22/1078.html. ↩
5. Supervisory Committees of the Federal Assembly, report on the supervision of the Federal Criminal Court by the Federal Supreme Court. ↩
6. Federal Criminal Court, Geschäftsbericht 2025 (above), p. 49. ↩
7. "Michael Lauber", Wikipedia (German), https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lauber (consulted September 2026), summarizing the decisions of the supervisory authority of 2 March 2020, the Federal Administrative Court and the Judicial Committee. Federal Administrative Court, judgment of July 2020 on Lauber's appeal. ↩
8. "Michael Lauber", Wikipedia (above) (discontinuation on 19 October 2023). The underlying decision of the extraordinary federal prosecutor. ↩

For general information only. This article does not constitute legal or tax advice, does not replace advice on an individual case and creates no lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the legal position as of October 2026.