Quality of the Plaintiff Party in Cases of Threat, Coercion, and Violation of Tenant Protection Regulations

Facts

Parties: X. Sàrl (Plaintiff), A. (Defendant), B. SA (Company of A.), C. von D. SA (Property Management), E. (Representative of X. Sàrl).

Courts: Neuchâtel Public Prosecutor's Office, Neuchâtel Cantonal Court, Federal Supreme Court.

Date: December 4, 2014.

Main Issue: X. Sàrl filed a criminal complaint for threat, coercion, violation of tenant protection regulations, and abusive use of a telecommunications facility. The Public Prosecutor's Office refused to initiate proceedings, and the Cantonal Court confirmed this decision. X. Sàrl filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.

Relevant Topics: Quality of the Plaintiff Party (Art. 115, 118 CrimPC), Victim Status in Threats (Art. 180 SCC), Coercion (Art. 181 SCC), Violation of Tenant Protection Regulations (Art. 325bis SCC), Abusive Use of a Telecommunications Facility (Art. 179septies SCC).

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examined the quality of the Plaintiff Party pursuant to Art. 81 para. 1 lit. a and b no. 5 FSCA. It found that the Plaintiff is only entitled to appeal if the contested decision affects its civil claims. The Plaintiff must therefore clearly state its civil claims in the appeal.

With regard to the charge of threat (Art. 180 SCC), the Court denied the quality of the Plaintiff Party, as a legal entity does not have feelings such as inner freedom and sense of security, which are protected by Art.…