Facts
The case concerns a complainant ([X.] ), who as the owner of the [C.] park had issued an indefinite ban from the premises to the opposing parties ([A.] and [B.] ). The District Court of March and the Cantonal Court of Schwyz subsequently convicted the complainant of coercion under Art. 181 of the Swiss Criminal Code (StGB). The complainant appealed the criminal case to the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court overturned the lower court's judgment and remanded the case back to the Cantonal Court for re-evaluation. It argued that the complainant as the owner of the [C.] park could have been fundamentally entitled to issue a ban from the premises. The lower court had not sufficiently examined the legal situation and the specific circumstances in this regard.
Even if the ban from the premises had been unlawful, this would not constitute coercion within the meaning of Art. 181 StGB. The failure to enter the [C.] park cannot at the same time be the means of coercion. Furthermore, there is a factual connection between the threatened criminal complaint and the pursued purpose, so that the threat of the criminal…