Facts

On 20 November 2019, the Criminal Court of the Lausanne district acquitted D. of the charges of professional usury, alternatively of professional theft and professional fraud, and dismissed the civil claims of E.A., who had acted as the injured party.

On 29 November 2019, E.A. filed an appeal against this judgment, seeking D.’s conviction and the admission of her civil claims. On 18 May 2020, E.A. passed away. Her heirs, A.A., B. and C. (nephews and niece of the deceased), continued the appeal in their own names, seeking the dismissal of D.’s motion for inadmissibility of the appeal.

On 8 July 2020, the Criminal Appeal Court of the Vaud Cantonal Court held that the heirs’ appeal was admissible insofar as their civil claims had been transferred, but dismissed it on the merits, confirming D.’s acquittal. The court also granted D.’s joined appeal regarding the procedural costs.

The heirs filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking the admission of the appeal, the annulment of the cantonal judgment and the referral of the matter for a new hearing.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examined the issue of the standing to appeal of distant heirs of a deceased injured party who had filed an appeal. Pursuant to Art. 81 para. 1 TSOA. b no. 5 SCC, the injured party who participated in the cantonal proceedings may appeal to the Federal Supreme Court if the challenged decision affects their civil claims. The notion of injured party is defined in Art. 115 CrimPC as any person whose rights have been directly affected by an offence.

The heirs of an injured party are considered indirectly injured parties and, as a rule, cannot become the injured party in criminal proceedings, except for the exceptions provided for in Art. 121 para. 1 and 2 CrimPC. Art. 121 para. 1 CrimPC governs the transfer of the rights of the injured party to close relatives within the meaning of Art. 110 para. 1 SCC (spouse, direct-line relatives, full siblings, etc.). The list is exhaustive and must be interpreted restrictively. Distant heirs, such as nephews and nieces in the present case, cannot therefore rely on this provision to inherit the status of injured party.

The Federal Supreme Court reiterated that the transfer of procedural rights under Art. 121 para. 1 CrimPC does not necessarily coincide with material succession governed by private law (Art. 560 CC). Thus, although the heirs are entitled to the deceased’s civil claims, their standing to act in criminal proceedings depends exclusively on the specific rules of the CrimPC. The cantonal court erred in admitting the heirs’ status as injured party by invoking a purported gap in the law, but the Federal Supreme Court…