Facts
On 27 March 2018, [A.] filed a criminal complaint against unknown persons for disruption of public traffic and railway traffic pursuant to Art. 237 and Art. 238 of the Swiss Criminal Code. He claimed that the operation of the [B.] shooting range endangered persons on eight public roads due to structural defects. The Public Prosecutor's Office of Solothurn did not take up the proceedings, arguing that the review of the structural measures had shown that neither the road nor the railway line or paths were directly visible and could therefore not be directly fired upon. According to the experts, the operation of the facility was unrestricted and complied with the applicable safety standards. The High Court of the Canton of Solothurn did not enter into [A.] 's appeal for lack of standing.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that only parties with a legally protected interest in the revocation or amendment of the decision are entitled to appeal against a non-prosecution decision. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, a party is the private prosecutor, i.e. the injured person who has expressly participated in the criminal proceedings. Other participants in the proceedings, such as the complainant, only have party rights if their rights are directly affected.
In the present case, the Federal Supreme Court denies that the appellant [A.] …