Facts
The appellant, [A.] , was the governor of the district of [X.] . The respondent, [B.] , worked at the governor's office as a legal secretary. On July 16 and 23, 2015, [B.] visited the ombudsman of the canton of Zurich and made allegations against [A.] , stating that she had reason to believe that he had favored third parties by allowing summary penalty proceedings to become time-barred. The ombudsman subsequently filed a criminal complaint against [A.] for favoritism, possibly official delinquency. The Public Prosecutor's Office I of the canton of Zurich requested the High Court to authorize the prosecution of [A.] , which was granted on August 31, 2015. However, the criminal proceedings against [A.] were discontinued on March 10, 2017.
[A.] then filed a criminal complaint against [B.] for false accusation (Art. 303 SCC) and abuse of office (Art. 312 SCC). The Public Prosecutor's Office I of the canton of Zurich forwarded the files to the High Court, which denied the authorization for the prosecution of [B.] , as there were no concrete indications of an initial suspicion that [B.] had accused [A.] with knowledge of the untruth and thus fulfilled the offense of false accusation.
Considerations
The Federal Court had to examine whether the lower court rightly denied the authorization for the prosecution of [B.] for false accusation. The appeal is admissible according to Art. 82 lit. a FSCA, as the contested decision is a final decision and no cantonal remedy is available.
The Federal Court examined whether the lower court violated federal law by denying the authorization for the prosecution of [B.] . It found that the lower court correctly stated the requirements for granting the authorization for prosecution and that the respondent based the allegations against the appellant on concrete…