Facts
The case concerns a dispute between X. and Y. in the course of the termination of their relationship. At the request of Y., the single judge at the District Court of Zurich had to decide on the imposition of a peace bond. By order dated October 13, 2010, the single judge did not enter into one application, rejected one, and granted a third. She set the security to be deposited at CHF 500,000.
Both parties appealed against the order of the single judge. X. also filed a request for suspensive effect, which the Cantonal Court of Zurich granted. However, by decision of February 7, 2011, the Cantonal Court dismissed X.'s appeal.
X. then filed a criminal law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and requested that the decision of the Cantonal Court be set aside and that Y.'s application for the imposition of a peace bond be fully dismissed.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed X.'s appeal. It stated that the element of the threat in Art. 66 of the Swiss Criminal Code (StGB) does not require a criminally relevant threat within the meaning of Art. 180 StGB. Any threat of a felony or misdemeanor is sufficient, if the threatened person has a serious, obvious concern that the threatening person will carry it out.
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the lower court rightly affirmed the preventive interest in the peace bond. Based on the established low frustration tolerance…