Decision on the Correction of the Judgment (Art. 83 CrimPC): Nature and Scope. This is not a new, independent decision: It takes effect retroactively to the date of the judgment.

Facts

On May 23, 1985, Maria Josefa [F.] filed a divorce lawsuit against Horst Erich [F.] with the District Court of Bülach. The court issued the divorce judgment on December 5, 1985, which became legally binding on January 21, 1987, with the exception of the regulation on child support for the son Gian Andrea.

On December 22, 1987, the Cantonal Court of Zurich decided for the first time on the child support. This decision was partially overturned, whereupon the Cantonal Court set the child support again on February 14, 1990. This decision was also partially overturned.

With the judgment of February 1, 1991, the Cantonal Court finally determined that Horst Erich [F.] has to pay monthly child support of CHF 300.- for his son Gian Andrea. Maria Josefa [F.] then requested a clarification of the judgment, as it was unclear whether the child support payments were indexed. The Cantonal Court partially rejected this request and stated that the appeal deadlines would start anew with the notification of the clarification decision.

With a submission dated June 17, 1991, Maria Josefa [F.] appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. She demanded that Horst Erich [F.] be obliged to pay CHF 500.- per month for the support of his son from June 1, 1988.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court did not enter into the appeal. It stated that the clarifications supplement the original judgment and do not constitute an independent, separate decision. Therefore, a new appeal deadline starts with the clarification. However, the plaintiff's appeal was not limited to the subject of the clarification, but was directed against the determination of the amount of support in the judgment of February 1, 1991, which was not the subject of the clarification proceedings. Thus, the appeal was late.

The Federal Supreme Court…