Facts
The complainant, [X.] , published an article in the Jusletter of March 1, 2010, on the topic "Minaret ban: Open questions on implementation". The defendant, [Y.] , published a counter-article, which was published on the website of the action committee "Against the strategic Islamization of Switzerland" (KSIS). [X.] filed a criminal complaint against [Y.] and unknown perpetrators for defamation and unfair competition. The Public Prosecutor's Office of See/Oberland discontinued the proceedings against [Y.] . The High Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the complaint by [X.] against the discontinuation order.
[X.] filed a complaint in criminal matters and requested the annulment of the contested decision and the remittal of the case to the lower court. The President of the Criminal Division of the Federal Court provisionally granted a stay of execution and invited the lower court, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich, and the defendant to comment, which they waived.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the complaint and found that the complainant is entitled to file a complaint in criminal matters. The relevant statements must be contained in the complaint itself. Insofar as the complainant refers to previous legal briefs and submissions in the cantonal proceedings for justification, the complaint is inadmissible.
The Federal Court rejected the complainant's objection that the Public Prosecutor's Office was not allowed to discontinue the proceedings against the defendant because the jurisdiction had not been clarified at that time. The lower court violated this provision and the complainant's right to be heard when it stated that the Public Prosecutor's Office did not have to comment on the jurisdictional issue.
The Federal Court found that the lower court had sufficiently addressed the complainant's arguments and…