Facts
On May 31, 2017, the District Court of Zurich found X. guilty, among other things, of misappropriation, unfaithful management of business, and mismanagement, and ordered A.A., B.A., and C.A. as other parties to the proceedings to pay certain amounts to the state as compensation for the unlawfully obtained financial advantage that is no longer available. A.A., B.A., and C.A. appealed against the judgment and requested, among other things, that the replacement claims ordered by the District Court be dismissed.
The High Court of the Canton of Zurich set a deadline for A.A., B.A., and C.A. to provide procedural security deposits. A.A., B.A., and C.A. withdrew their appeal requests for admission as private prosecutors and for the award of damages, but maintained their appeal requests regarding the replacement claims. The High Court did not enter into the appeals due to the failure to pay the required security deposits.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upholds the appeals. It states that the lower court was not allowed to demand security deposits from A.A., B.A., and C.A. as other parties to the proceedings within the meaning of Art. 105 para. 1 lit. f CCP to cover any potential cost and compensation claims. Art. 383 para. 1 CCP, which provides for the possibility of a security deposit for private prosecutors, is not applicable by analogy to other parties to the…