Facts
On September 28, 2012, the complainant [A.] filed a criminal complaint against unknown persons for forgery of documents, lack of due diligence in financial transactions, and other offenses. The public prosecutor's office then opened a criminal investigation and granted the complainant (private prosecutor) [B.] access to the files on September 4, 2013. On September 24, 2013, [A.] as the beneficial owner of the affected accounts requested a restriction on access to the files. The public prosecutor's office then ordered on September 25, 2013 a prohibition on copying and stipulated that access to the files could only be granted on the premises of the public prosecutor's office. Furthermore, [B.] , her legal representatives, and their assistants were subject to a confidentiality obligation.
[B.] filed a complaint against this order with the High Court of the Canton of Zurich. The High Court lifted the restrictions on access to the files and the confidentiality obligation in its decision of August 5, 2014. Thereupon, [A.] filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It stated that neither the purpose of the proceedings nor a private interest worthy of protection made secrecy appear necessary. Therefore, the restrictions on the right of access to the files ordered by the public prosecutor's office and the confidentiality obligation had been wrongly imposed.
The court emphasized that the parties generally have the right to inspect all files of the criminal investigation. Restrictions…