Facts
The case concerns a dispute between a landlord, R., and his tenant, G., as well as G.'s partner, W. G. rented an apartment in R.'s house and took W. as a roommate, despite R.'s prohibition. R. filed a complaint for violation of domicile against W. after the latter entered the house several times despite the prohibition.
The cantonal courts convicted W. of violation of domicile, considering that the landlord, R., had the right to prohibit access to his house to W. However, W. appealed this decision, arguing that the tenant, G., had the right to decide who could enter the apartment and that R. did not have the right to prohibit access to W.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the question of who is the entitled party in a house inhabited by the landlord and tenants. It considered that the tenant, G., had the right to decide who could enter the apartment and that the landlord, R., did not have the right to prohibit access to W. without violating the tenant's rights.
The Federal Court also examined the question of whether the act of entering or remaining in the house was unlawful. It considered that unlawfulness assumes that the landlord or tenant has prohibited access to the person and that this person has acted…