Facts
The appellant [X.] was convicted by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich for property damage and violation of traffic regulations. However, the judgment was only signed by the court clerk and not by the presiding judge. The appellant filed a complaint in criminal matters and requested that he be acquitted of the charge of property damage.
The proceedings began with an indictment by the Zurich-Sihl Public Prosecutor's Office against [X.] for property damage and multiple violations of traffic regulations. The Zurich District Court found [X.] guilty of violating traffic regulations and sentenced him to a fine of CHF 200.--. It acquitted him of the charges of property damage and violation of traffic regulations.
The Public Prosecutor's Office appealed against this judgment and requested that [X.] be found guilty of property damage as well. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich established that the first-instance judgment regarding the traffic violations had become final and found [X.] guilty of property damage as well.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the validity of the High Court's judgment and found that it had not been properly signed. According to Art. 80 para. 2 and 3 CrimPC, decisions must be in writing, reasoned, and signed by the presiding judge and the recording person. Since the judgment was only signed by the court clerk and not by the presiding judge, it did not meet the requirements of Art. 80 para. 2 CrimPC.
The Federal Court found that the contested decision was to be set aside and remanded to the lower court for reconsideration. It was established that the judgment…