Facts
The complainant [X.] was instructed by the Regional Employment Agency (AOO) Fehraltorf to attend a course "JobBasis A" at NewPlacement GmbH to promote his employability. After he refused to disclose personal data, the course leader [Y.] and the operational manager of NewPlacement GmbH [Z.] cancelled the course. Subsequently, the Office for Economy and Labour of the Canton of Zurich (AWA) ordered the suspension of [X.] 's entitlement to benefits for seven days.
[X.] filed a criminal complaint against [Y.] and [Z.] , NewPlacement GmbH, and the responsible case handlers of the AOO and the AWA for coercion. The Zurich-Sihl Public Prosecutor's Office decided not to initiate an investigation against [Y.] and [Z.] and NewPlacement GmbH. An appeal by [X.] against the decision not to initiate proceedings was dismissed by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich.
[X.] lodged a criminal appeal with the Federal Court and requested that the contested decision be set aside and that the initiation of the investigation by the Zurich-Sihl Public Prosecutor's Office be ordered.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the complainant's standing and found that he did not explain how the contested decision affects his civil claims. However, it could remain open whether this is sufficient for affirming standing under Art. 81 para. 1 lit. b no. 5 FSCA, as the appeal is unfounded in any case.
The Federal Court pointed out that the public prosecutor's office opens an investigation if the information and reports from the police, the criminal complaint, or its own findings reveal a sufficient suspicion of a criminal offence. It found that the question of whether a criminal case can be closed by the prosecution authorities through a decision not to initiate proceedings is assessed according to the principle "in dubio pro duriore" derived…