Facts
On February 26, 2014, [A. AG] filed a criminal complaint against its former employee [X.] for unauthorized data procurement or unauthorized access to a data processing system. The Public Prosecutor's Office discontinued the criminal proceedings against [X.] on December 5, 2014 and imposed the procedural costs on [A. AG] , compensated [X.] through the state, and obligated [A. AG] to fully reimburse the state for the compensation paid to [X.] .
[A. AG] appealed against this decision. The High Court of the Canton of Thurgau overturned paragraphs 2-4 of the discontinuation order and remanded the case to the Public Prosecutor's Office for a new decision. In the new discontinuation order issued on March 9, 2015, the Public Prosecutor's Office imposed the procedural costs of CHF 622.-- on [A. AG] , compensated [X.] through the state with CHF 8,768.50, and obligated [A. AG] to fully reimburse the state for the compensation paid to [X.] .
[A. AG] again appealed against this decision. The High Court of the Canton of Thurgau partially upheld the appeal and amended the discontinuation order, obligating [A. AG] to pay CHF 4,746.60 to the state for the costs of [X.] 's defense. It also imposed the procedural costs for the appeal proceedings on [A. AG] , determined the compensation to be paid by the state to [A. AG] , and obligated [A. AG] to compensate [X.] with CHF 1,030.50 (plus VAT) for the appeal proceedings.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court and remanded the case to the lower court for a new regulation of the cost and compensation consequences of the cantonal proceedings.
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the lower court applied Art. 420 lit. a CCP too extensively when it accused [A. AG] of having acted with gross negligence by filing a complaint without further clarifying the facts. While [A. AG] could have conducted further investigations, the lower court fails to recognize that the state…