Facts
The complainant [A.] had filed a criminal complaint against [B.] , the chairwoman of the conciliation authority in rent and lease matters of the Zurich District Court, on August 21, 2018, for intentional forgery of documents. The complainant claimed that [B.] had, in a termination protection procedure concerning him, issued the action permit only in reduced form on May 15, 2018, although he had insisted on a complete action permit.
The High Court of the Canton of Zurich, III. Criminal Chamber, had rejected the authorization for the prosecution of [B.] , as there was no relevant suspicion of document forgery. The complainant appealed against this decision to the Federal Court and requested the ordering and conduct of a criminal investigation for intentional forgery of documents in office.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the lower court had rightly refused the authorization for prosecution. It found that the lower court had based its decision on the lack of sufficient initial suspicion. The complainant had argued in his appeal to the Federal Court that the lower court had violated Art. 309 para. 1 lit. a CrimPC by refusing the authorization for the opening of a criminal investigation.
The Federal Court applied the law ex officio and examined whether the lower court had rightly refused the authorization for prosecution. It found that the lower court had based its decision on the lack of a relevant suspicion. The Federal Court examined whether the lower court had rightly refused the authorization for prosecution and came to the conclusion that the lower court had not made…