Setting aside the setting aside of a dismissal order due to unlawful granting of an extension period in the appeal proceedings

Facts

On 19 July 2017, Respondent 2 filed a criminal complaint against [C. AG] for fraud and forgery. The allegation related to the fact that [C. AG] had marketed products under the name [D.] that did not correspond to the quality of the original product of [E. GmbH] . On 12 September 2019, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of St. Gallen dismissed the criminal proceedings against [C. AG] .

Respondent 2 filed an appeal against the dismissal order on 23 September 2019. However, the appeal was incomplete and contained no grounds. The Appeals Chamber of the Canton of St. Gallen subsequently granted a 19-day extension period for the appeal to be supplemented. On 8 January 2020, the Appeals Chamber set aside the dismissal order and referred the matter back to the Public Prosecutor's Office for further review.

The CEO of [C. AG] (Appellant) filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Supreme Court against this decision. He argued that the Appeals Chamber had unlawfully granted an extension period and had therefore unlawfully entertained Respondent 2's appeal. In addition, the extension period had been unreasonably long and violated procedural principles.

Considerations

1. Admissibility of the appeal The Federal Supreme Court first examines whether the appeal against the interlocutory decision of the Appeals Chamber is admissible. Pursuant to Art. 93 para. 1 lit. b FSCA, an interlocutory decision may be contested if its setting aside immediately results in a final decision and thereby saves significant time or costs in a lengthy evidence procedure. The Federal Supreme Court finds that this is the case here, since setting aside the contested decision would restore the legal force of the original dismissal order and prevent further proceedings. Moreover, such proceedings would involve considerable effort, in particular since Respondent 2's appeal should have been dismissed as inadmissible if assessed lawfully.

2. Lawfulness of the granting of the extension period Respondent 2's appeal of 23 September 2019 did not meet the requirements of Art. 385 para. 1 CrimPC, as it contained no grounds. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber granted a 19-day extension period for the appeal to be supplemented. The Federal Supreme Court clarifies that an extension period pursuant to Art. 385 para. 2 CrimPC may only be granted in cases of oversight or unavoidable hindrance. In the present case, however, no such situation existed. Respondent 2 was already represented by counsel at the time the appeal was filed, and there was sufficient time to submit grounds for the appeal within the statutory 10-day period (Art. 396 para. 1 CrimPC). The alleged absence of the representative from the office and the fact that the representative had not yet had access to the file do not justify an extension period, since the grounds for the appeal could at least have been set out in outline.

3. Violation of procedural provisions The…