On March 6, 2026, the Ber­ne­se High Court ruled in respon­se to an appeal against a non-pro­se­cu­ti­on order issued by the Emmen­tal-Ober­aar­gau Regio­nal Public Prosecutor’s Office (BK 25 252, Swiss­lex) sta­tes, among other things, that the Offi­ci­al sec­re­cy not vio­la­ted just becau­se the enve­lo­pe of a let­ter addres­sed to the debtor con­ta­ins a Attach­ment num­ber visi­ble is: such a num­ber could also be used in dealings with a cre­di­tor and it was not appa­rent that the enve­lo­pe had been seen by third parties:

Equal­ly, cri­mi­nal lia­bi­li­ty of the accu­sed based on the [Swiss Cri­mi­nal Code] or ano­ther cri­mi­nal law pro­vi­si­on is out of the que­sti­on or is not even asser­ted by the com­plainant. For the sake of com­ple­ten­ess only, it should be noted that Art. 320 SCC (vio­la­ti­on of offi­ci­al sec­re­cy) in par­ti­cu­lar is out of the que­sti­on from the out­set, espe­ci­al­ly sin­ce the debt enforce­ment or sei­zu­re num­ber visi­ble in the enve­lo­pe win­dow is used in cor­re­spon­dence with debtors and cre­di­tors and, con­tra­ry to the complainant’s opi­ni­on, it can­not the­r­e­fo­re be rea­di­ly infer­red from this that debt enforce­ment pro­ce­e­dings are being con­duc­ted against him and cor­re­spon­din­gly spe­ci­fic infor­ma­ti­on was dis­c­lo­sed by means of the enve­lo­pe. In addi­ti­on, the let­ter car­ri­er acts as a debt enforce­ment agent when deli­ve­ring debt enforce­ment docu­ments and his actions are attri­bu­ted to the debt enforce­ment office […], which means that no breach of offi­ci­al sec­re­cy can be com­mit­ted from the out­set if he takes note of the debt enforce­ment pro­ce­e­dings. Moreo­ver, the fact that let­ters are mis­di­rec­ted or acci­den­tal­ly pla­ced in the wrong let­ter­box in the complainant’s resi­den­ti­al envi­ron­ment, with the result that third par­ties gain know­ledge of the­se let­ters, is a mere, unsub­stan­tia­ted alle­ga­ti­on by the com­plainant. In any case, the enve­lo­pe copies he sub­mit­ted bear the cor­rect address.

It was clear that no cri­mi­nal pro­vi­si­on of the DPA applied.