Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of St. Gallen conducted a criminal investigation against X. for commercial fraud. On February 4, 2011, the responsible public prosecutor had X. arrested and applied to the regional Compulsory Measures Judge of the District Court of Rheintal to place him in pre-trial detention. On February 5, 2011, the Compulsory Measures Judge released X. from pre-trial detention and ordered alternative measures.
On February 11, 2011, the Chief Public Prosecutor filed an appeal against this decision with the Indictment Chamber, requesting that it be determined that the release of X. from pre-trial detention was based on a violation of Art. 221 and Art. 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On March 16, 2011, the Indictment Chamber did not enter into the appeal.
In a criminal law appeal, the First Public Prosecutor requested that this decision be overturned and that the Indictment Chamber be instructed to decide on the matter.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court held that the Public Prosecutor's Office has a current legal interest in the declaratory claim, as this gives it the possibility to have the opposing party immediately re-arrested and to apply to the Compulsory Measures Court for the imposition of pre-trial detention. Thus, the Public Prosecutor's Office has a legally protected interest in the Indictment Chamber's assessment of its declaratory claim and, consequently, in the appeal to the Federal Supreme Court against the Indictment…