Facts

Parties:

  • [A.] LLC (appellant), represented by attorney Urs Saal,
  • [B.] , [C.] , [D.] (respondents), all represented by attorneys Dr. Markus Zwicky and Irene Getzmann,
  • Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of SocRA, II. Division.

Facts:

  • On July 8, 2010, [A.] LLC filed a criminal complaint against [D.] , [B.] , and [C.] , alleging forgery, fraud, and breach of trust.
  • The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of SocRA suspended the criminal proceedings on October 21, 2010, as the facts of the criminal case were identical to those of the civil proceedings and the civil judgment was prejudicial to the criminal proceedings.
  • The Higher Court of the Canton of SocRA dismissed the appeal of [A.] LLC against the suspension order on December 23, 2010.

Main issue:

  • Whether the suspension of the criminal proceedings violates the right to a speedy trial under Art. 29 Abs. 1 Cst.

Considerations

The suspension of criminal proceedings is only permissible in exceptional cases and only if the judgment in the other proceedings is constitutive for the proceedings to be suspended. The criminal prosecution authorities must generally clarify and decide preliminary legal questions from other areas, such as civil law. The suspension of the criminal proceedings is only justified if the criminal proceedings depend on another proceeding and it appears appropriate to await its outcome.

In the present case, the suspension of the criminal proceedings is not justified, as the question of whether the contract was backdated and whether the respondent 3 was dismissed at the end of April 2010 is essentially a question of fact that the criminal authorities can clarify better than the civil court. Furthermore, the question of whether respondent 3 was authorized to sign individually for the appellant is not particularly complex and could be answered preliminarily by…