Facts
The case concerns a dispute between the tenant Parolini and the property owner Schmid. Parolini filed a criminal complaint against Schmid for unfair competition, as the latter allegedly accused him of professional incompetence and lack of creditworthiness with his suppliers. However, the High Court of the Canton of Lucerne acquitted Schmid, as it denied the criminal offense of unfair competition.
Parolini subsequently filed a nullity appeal, requesting that the judgment be set aside and the matter be remanded to the lower court for the punishment of the accused for repeated unfair competition.
Considerations
The Court of Cassation confirmed the decision of the High Court. It stated that the punishment for unfair competition under Art. 13 UWG generally requires that there was an economic competitive relationship between the perpetrator and the victim at the time of the offense. Unfair competition is only punishable if there is an abuse of economic competition.
Since Schmid himself did not operate a business, but was only indirectly interested in the business operations of the cafes as the owner or organ of the properties, there was no competitive relationship between him and Parolini. Therefore, Schmid's conduct did not…