Facts

The complainant A.X. filed a criminal complaint against his sister B.X. on 28 June 2013 and submitted a criminal complaint for alleged misappropriation of estate assets. According to him, after the death of their common mother on 20 March 2013 in Portugal, B.X. had unlawfully withdrawn a total of approximately CHF 9,000 from accounts at Swiss banks and paid an amount of CHF 75.05 using the deceased’s credit card, thereby causing damage to the estate community.

On 25 October 2013, the Zurich-Limmat Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute B.X. due to lack of Swiss jurisdiction. A.X. filed an appeal against this decision with the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich on 28 October 2013, which dismissed the appeal as inadmissible on 31 October 2014 on the grounds that A.X. lacked standing to appeal. The Higher Court justified this by stating that a single heir can generally only act jointly with the other members of the estate community, unless all other heirs had committed CO were to commit the crime. Since A.X. accused his sister and not all co-heirs of the act, he lacked standing to appeal.

A.X. applied to the Federal Supreme Court with an appeal in criminal matters for the annulment of the Zurich Higher Court’s decision and for an order to the Zurich-Limmat Public Prosecutor’s Office to initiate a criminal investigation. The Higher Court and B.X. waived the right to submit a statement, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office did not provide a statement. The Federal Supreme Court deliberated the judgment in public (Art. 58 para. 1 FSCA).

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examined whether a single heir can appeal against a non-prosecution decision by the Public Prosecutor’s Office without the participation of the other heirs. It clarified that the decisive factor was whether the heir was considered directly harmed within the meaning of Art. 115 para. 1 CrimPC and had constituted himself as a private prosecutor. It was irrelevant whether the crime had been committed by a co-heir CO a third party.

The Court explained that although the estate community as a community of joint owners does not have its own legal personality, the individual heirs are considered holders of the estate’s property rights. In cases of crimes against the estate community, the individual heirs are therefore to be regarded as harmed parties within the meaning of Art. 115 para. 1 CrimPC. This applied regardless of whether the act was committed by a co-heir CO a third party. The right to file a criminal complaint was a personal right of the individual heir, as it was a highly personal right that neither asserted claims to the estate nor disposed of the community property. Rather, the criminal complaint was directed against the perpetrator, whose punishment was sought, with the criminal claim belonging to the State.

The Federal Supreme Court emphasised that the civil law impossibility of asserting claims from the estate alone did not preclude standing to appeal in criminal proceedings. By the alleged crimes of his sister, the…