Facts
In several issues of a weekly magazine, author G. criticized the business practices of company A. AG and B. The latter as well as A. AG filed a criminal complaint against G. and the former editor-in-chief X. for damage to credit (former Art. 160 SCC) and for acts of unfair competition (Art. 23 in conjunction with Art. 3 let. a UCA). The Public Prosecutor's Office ultimately indicted G. and X. for several acts of unfair competition within the meaning of Art. 23 in conjunction with Art. 3 let. a UCA, due to various inaccurate, misleading and/or unnecessarily hurtful statements in the article of April 11, 1991. The Cantonal Court convicted G. of several acts of unfair competition within the meaning of Art. 23 in conjunction with Art. 3 let. a UCA, sentencing him to a fine and ordering him to pay compensation to A. AG and B.Considerations
According to the Federal Supreme Court, the offense punished by Art. 23 in conjunction with Art. 3 let. a UCA does not lie in the creation of an overall negative image by the statements contained in the newspaper article, but in the statements themselves, insofar as they defame the parties concerned as participants in economic competition, are inaccurate, misleading or unnecessarily hurtful, and the author is aware of them or at least accepts them. The overall impression created by the article is only relevant for the interpretation of the various incriminated…