Facts
The case concerns a dispute between A. and Z., where A. was convicted of üble Nachrede (defamation) by the cantonal court. A. appealed to the SCC, contesting the validity of the criminal complaint filed by Z. for defamatory denunciation (Art. 303 SCC) and for attack on honour (Art. 173 ff. SCC).
The facts are as follows: on 18 April 1987, A. took a prohibited road and was stopped by police officer Z. A. refused to pay a fine for disregarding a traffic signal and subsequently called the police to request that Z. undergo an alcohol test, claiming that Z. smelled of alcohol and was driving nonetheless.
Z. filed a criminal complaint for defamatory denunciation and A. was convicted of defamation. A. appealed, arguing that Z.'s criminal complaint was not valid because it did not explicitly mention the offences of attack on honour.
Considerations
The SCC examined the question of whether Z.'s criminal complaint for defamatory denunciation (Art. 303 SCC) could also encompass a complaint for attack on honour (Art. 173 ff. SCC). The court considered that, according to practice, a Strafantrag (criminal complaint) is valid if the complainant expresses their intention to pursue the offender without condition and in such a way that the criminal procedure can continue without another declaration of will.
The court also considered that, when a complainant files a criminal complaint, it is not necessary for them to qualify the facts legally, as this is the task of the criminal authority. However, if the complainant clearly expresses their intention to pursue only certain offences, they may be considered to have waived other offences.
In this case, the court considered that Z.'s…