Facts
The complainant, [A.] , claims that she was insulted and physically attacked by three members of the army on March 28, 2016. The public prosecutor's office of See/Oberland discontinued the criminal proceedings, and the complaint filed by [A.] was dismissed by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich. [A.] now requests that the decision of the High Court be set aside and the case be referred back for further clarification and indictment.
The complainant argues that she is entitled to appeal as a private plaintiff and victim, as she participated in the proceedings at first instance and is directly affected by the discontinuation in her civil claims. She also requests that she be granted a reasonable party compensation for the proceedings before the High Court.
Considerations
The Federal Court notes that the complainant has not sufficiently substantiated which claims she derives from Art. 41 CO or the alleged violation of her personality and how the contested decision can affect these civil claims. The complaint obviously does not meet the statutory requirements for substantiation.
The Federal Court further addresses the question of whether the complainant, as a member of the army, is a third party within the meaning of Art. 135 para. 1 ArmA. It notes that the liability of military personnel is generally governed by the Federal Act on the Army and Military Administration (Military Act, ArmA). The Act establishes a liability of the Confederation for damage caused by a soldier to…