Facts
In this case, it was about a complaint by [A.] against the decision of the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn not to further pursue her criminal complaint against her ex-husband for misappropriation or theft. The Public Prosecutor's Office had not taken up the complaint on January 16, 2017. [A.] then filed a complaint with the High Court of the Canton of Solothurn on January 27, 2017, which, however, did not enter into the complaint, as it had been insufficiently substantiated.
[A.] then filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting that the decision of the High Court be set aside and the matter be remanded to the lower instance for a new assessment. She also requested the granting of legal aid.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the complaint. It stated that the lower instance had violated federal law by not entering into the complaint without setting a subsequent deadline under Art. 385 para. 2 CrimPC. Although the complaint of January 27, 2017 obviously did not meet the requirements for substantiation under Art. 385 para. 1 CrimPC, it was sufficiently clear from it under which aspect the contested decision should be reviewed. Therefore, the complainant should have been granted a subsequent deadline to improve the complaint.
The Federal Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court and remanded the matter to it, so that it could proceed in accordance with the considerations. The first question to be…