Facts
The complainant [A.] was convicted by the Regional Court of Bernese Jura-Seeland by judgment of 15 August 2017 of trespass, false accusation, driving without a licence and other road traffic offences. The Higher Court of the Canton of Bern, 1st Criminal Chamber, dismissed his appeal by judgment of 31 January 2020. The complainant filed a criminal appeal against this judgment with the Federal Supreme Court.
The complainant argued in particular that the criminal complaint regarding trespass filed by [D.] on behalf of respondent 2 ([B. AG] ) was invalid because [D.] was not authorised to sign. Respondent 2 employs 17,000 employees and has internal signature regulations according to which non-authorised employees may act and sign on behalf of the company within their areas of responsibility. [D.] had been tasked with maintaining security in the [B.] shops and thus had a special responsibility for exercising the house rights.
The complainant requested an acquittal of the charges of trespass, false accusation and driving without a licence as well as an appropriate reduction of the sentence. He also requested a reallocation of the costs incurred in the lower courts and compensation for party expenses. In procedural terms, he requested the granting of suspensive effect and free legal aid.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examined the validity of the criminal complaint filed by [D.] . It found that although [D.] was not authorised to sign and did not hold an official position, he had been tasked with maintaining security in the [B.] shops. The court recalled the case law according to which the right to file a criminal complaint is fundamentally highly personal and non-transferable, but may be exercised by a representative if that representative is called upon to safeguard the interests violated. In the case of legal entities, this is the body that is called upon to safeguard the interests violated by the offence or a person who has been expressly or tacitly tasked with safeguarding the interests of the legal entity.
The court emphasised that in the case of offences against the assets of a legal entity, such as trespass, employees entrusted with safeguarding the house rights may also be authorised to file a criminal complaint. The decisive factor is that the criminal complaint is not filed against the will of the company and can be approved by it. Due to his function, [D.] was obliged to safeguard the house rights and was to be regarded as authorised to file the complaint on behalf of…