312.0 STPOCPP

CH

Art. 271 Schweizerische Strafprozessordnung (StPO) - Schutz von Berufsgeheimnissen

StPO; 5. Titel: Zwangsmassnahmen; 8. Kapitel: Geheime Überwachungsmassnahmen

Originalquelle öffnen Gesamter Erlass (478 Artikel) Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Art. 271 StPO · Schutz von Berufsgeheimnissen

Bei der Überwachung einer Person, die einer in den Artikeln 170–173 genannten Berufsgruppe angehört, sind Informationen, die mit dem Gegenstand der Ermittlungen und dem Grund, aus dem diese Person überwacht wird, nicht in Zusammenhang stehen, unter der Leitung eines Gerichtes auszusondern. Dabei dürfen der Strafverfolgungsbehörde keine Berufsgeheimnisse zur Kenntnis gelangen. Die ausgesonderten Daten sind sofort zu vernichten; sie dürfen nicht ausgewertet werden.

Informationen nach Absatz 1 müssen nicht vorgängig ausgesondert werden, wenn: a. der dringende Tatverdacht gegen die Trägerin oder den Träger des Berufsgeheimnisses selber besteht; und b. besondere Gründe es erfordern.

Bei der Überwachung anderer Personen sind, sobald feststeht, dass diese mit einer in den Artikeln 170–173 genannten Person Verbindung haben, Informationen zur Kommunikation mit dieser Person gemäss Absatz 1 auszusondern. Informationen, über welche eine in den Artikeln 170–173 genannte Person das Zeugnis verweigern kann, sind aus den Verfahrensakten auszusondern und sofort zu vernichten; sie dürfen nicht ausgewertet werden.

← Art. 270 StPO Schweizerische Strafprozessordnung (StPO) - Geltungsbereich Art. 272 StPO →

Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (55)

BB.2018.188 (Art. 271 CPP)

Wiretap upheld: Applicant's involvement sufficiently suspected.

This article concerns the procedures for handling information subject to professional secrecy during surveillance.

2016.12.23.1 · bl (Art. 271 Abs. 3 StPO)

Prosecutor's Application for Retroactive Mobile Phone Monitoring Granted

This provision is cited concerning the segregation and immediate destruction of information belonging to third parties over whom the witness could refuse testimony.

2016.12.23.2 · bl (Art. 271 Abs. 3 StPO)

Retroactive Mobile Phone Surveillance Approved for Serious Crimes Investigation

Cited in the dispositive regarding the exclusion and destruction of information from persons other than the monitored individual, concerning whom they could refuse to testify.

350.16.635 · bl (Art. 271 Abs. 3 StPO)

Retroactive Phone Surveillance Approved in Theft and Vandalism Probe

Rule for the exclusion and destruction of information from persons who could refuse to testify.

350.2016.634 · bl (Art. 271 Abs. 3 StPO)

Retroactive Phone Surveillance Authorized for Theft Suspect

This provision is cited in the second dispositive order concerning the exclusion and destruction of information from persons who could refuse to testify.

2011.12.05.1 · bl (Art. 271 Abs. 2 lit. a StPO)

Preliminary Surveillance Authorization Despite Deficient Documentation in Serious Robbery Case

Cited as a requirement provisionally met for granting the real-time surveillance, relating to the absence of a strong suspicion against a professional secrecy holder.

350.2011.559 · bl (Art. 271 Abs. 2 lit. a StPO)

Provisional Surveillance Authorization Granted Despite Insufficient Evidence Due to Severity of Suspected Crime

Cited to establish the preliminary conditions for direct connection, specifically that there is no urgent suspicion against a holder of professional secrecy.

AK.2011.82 · sg (Art. 271 Abs. 3 StPO)

Attorney-Client Privilege: Mandatory Exclusion and Destruction of Surveillance Recordings

Cited as the legal basis for the mandatory exclusion and immediate destruction of information covered by professional secrecy during surveillance of third parties.

AK.2011.82 · sg (Art. 271 Abs. 3 StPO)

In re: Deletion of Privileged Attorney-Client Communications from Investigation File Following Telecommunication Surveillance

This provision mandates the separation and immediate destruction of information subject to professional secrecy (like lawyer-client communications) derived from surveillance.

17.2010.32 · ti (art. 271 lett. a CPP TI)

Vehicle Ownership Dispute in Criminal Context

The referral to the civil court for RI 1's claim was justified because the object had already passed into the hands of a third party to the crime.

Arr.t.2010.1654 · vd (art. 271 al. 2 CPP)

Appeal on Insult Conviction and Assault Dismissal

This article is cited to explain the effect of the opposition which brought the entire case before the Tribunal d'accusation.

Arr.t.2010.1469 · vd (Art. 271 CPP)

Defendant's Opposition Nullifies Recourse on Defense Fees, Triggers Full Review of Conviction

Listed at the top, likely related to the overall procedure governing this stage, although not explicitly named in the final orders themselves.

10.2009.585 · ti (art. 271 cpv 1; 9 e segg., 273 e segg. CPP)

Child Support Non-Payment Conviction and Fine

Cited in the preamble before the operative part, indicating the procedural framework, although the specific procedural rules applied in the dispositive are primarily related to costs/notifications.

Arr.t.2010.1164 · vd (art. 271 CPP)

Public Prosecutor v. Accused: Aggression Charge Reinstated on Appeal

The court used this article to establish its competence to rule on the opposition against the combined order of conviction and non-lieu.

Arr.t.2010.1143 · vd (Art. 271 et 272 CPP)

Combined Condemnation and Non-Lieu Order on Alien Violations Following Timely Opposition

Cited to confirm that the appeal filed by one party brought the entire case before the Court of Assizes.