{

Facts

{ "title": \"Scope of the opposition of the aggrieved party against the indictment in simplified procedure and its limits", \"facts": \"

Parties and roles:

The case opposed the aggrieved party (AP) (represented by A. and B.), the central public prosecutor's office (PPO) of the canton of Valais, and the accused (D.). A. and B. acted as aggrieved parties in two separate proceedings related to altercations outside nightclubs (U. in 2014 and V. in 2014), before these proceedings were joined and severed several times between 2014 and 2021.

On 11 September 2020, D. requested the implementation of a simplified procedure (SIM), governed by Art. 358 et seq. CrimPC. On 6 January 2021, the PPO issued a decision to open the SIM, setting a ten-day deadline for the aggrieved parties to announce their civil claims and procedural indemnities claimed. Failure to respond was deemed to mean that these parties were reserving their claims and referring them to the civil court (Art. 126 para. 2 TSOA. b CrimPC, Art. 123 para. 2 and 331 para. 2 CrimPC).

On 8 February 2021, the PPO invited the parties to declare whether they accepted or rejected the indictment in the SIM (Art. 360 para. 2 CrimPC), a document providing for, among other things, D.'s conviction to 22 months' suspended custodial sentence and the referral of civil claims to the civil court.

• On 9 February 2021, A. rejected the indictment, citing the inadequacy of the sentence and the inappropriateness of the procedural severance, without contesting the civil claims or the qualification of the offences.
• On 16 February 2021, B. also rejected the indictment, based on the inadequacy of the sentence and the inappropriateness of the severance, without contesting the civil claims or the qualification of the facts.

On 17 February 2021, D. confirmed in writing his agreement with the indictment in the SIM.

On 24 February 2021, the PPO responded to A. and B., stating that it considered their oppositions as ineffective pursuant to Art. 360 CrimPC.

On 6 October 2021, the PPO submitted the indictment in the SIM to the District Court of Sierre for judgment.

Canton proceedings:

By judgment of 31 January 2022, the District Court of Sierre found D. guilty of assaults, simple bodily harm, threats, violation of the WA, brawl and simple bodily harm with a dangerous object. It sentenced him to a suspended custodial sentence of 22 months, deducting the pre-trial detention already served, and referred the civil claims to the civil court.

A. and B. filed an appeal on 18 February 2022 with the Criminal Court of the Valais Cantonal Tribunal, primarily seeking the annulment of the judgment and the referral of the matter back to the PPO to initiate ordinary preliminary proceedings against D.

By decision of 25 January 2024, the Cantonal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of 31 January 2022.

Appeal to the Federal Supreme Court:

A. and B. filed a criminal appeal on 15 November 2024 (case 6B_170/2024) against the decision of 25 January 2024. They sought the annulment of that decision, the referral of the matter back to the PPO to initiate ordinary preliminary proceedings, the charging of D. with the full costs of the cantonal proceedings, and an award of compensation for the expenses incurred at cantonal level by the reasonable exercise of their procedural rights.

The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by decision of 15 November 2024 (BB 151 IV 46).

Procedural context and issues:

• The oppositions by A. and B. related to the choice of procedure (simplified vs. ordinary), the procedural severance, and the inadequacy of the proposed sentence, with no connection to their own rights (civil claims or offences alleged).
• Neither of the aggrieved parties announced their civil claims within the time limit (Art. 359 para. 2 CrimPC), thereby implicitly accepting their referral to the civil court.
• The PPO considered their oppositions as ineffective pursuant to Art. 360 CrimPC, finding that these oppositions did not affect their own rights.

Factual context of the offences:

The proceedings were linked to altercations outside nightclubs

• A first altercation on 8 February 2014 in U., leading to an investigation for simple bodily harm (Art. 123 SCC) and assault (Art. 134 SCC) against D., G. and unknown persons (case 1).
• A second altercation on 8 May 2014 in V., leading to an investigation against D. (case 2).
• On 30 November 2016, the PPO severed the proceedings against D. in case 2 to join it to case 1.
• On 23 December 2020, the PPO severed the proceedings against D. (case 3) from those against G. and H.

D. acknowledged the facts relevant to the legal assessment and, at least in principle, the civil claims, allowing the implementation of a simplified procedure (Art. 358 para. 1 CrimPC).

Simplified procedure and its implications:

The simplified procedure (SIM) is a special procedure allowing the ordinary criminal procedure to be shortened, based on procedural efficiency and the principle of expeditiousness (Art. 358 et seq. CrimPC).

In this procedure

• The accused must formally confirm his agreement with the indictment (Art. 360 para. 2 CrimPC).
• The aggrieved party has a right to oppose the indictment, but only with regard to aspects affecting its own rights (civil claims or offences alleged), and not the sentence or general procedural aspects (Art. 360 paras. 2, 3 and 5 CrimPC).
• The opposition must be justified with reference to aspects of the indictment that have an impact on the aggrieved party's rights (majority jurisprudence and doctrine).

Judgment under appeal and its grounds:

The Cantonal Tribunal confirmed the judgment of the District Court of Sierre, dismissing the appeal of the aggrieved parties. It held that:

• Neither of the appellants had justified their opposition with reference to aspects of the indictment likely to affect their rights (civil claims or offences alleged).
• Their oppositions related to the type of procedure, the severance, and the inadequacy of the sentence, without contesting the civil claims or the qualification of the offences.
• The Cantonal Tribunal considered their oppositions as ineffective, the PPO not being required to initiate ordinary preliminary proceedings.

Purpose of the appeal:

A. and B. sought the annulment of the Cantonal Tribunal's decision and the District Court's judgment, the referral of the matter back to the PPO to initiate ordinary preliminary proceedings, the charging of D. with the costs of the cantonal proceedings, and an award of compensation for their procedural expenses.

", \"reasoning": \"

The Federal Supreme Court examined the scope of the right of opposition of the aggrieved party (AP) against the indictment in simplified procedure (SIM), pursuant to Art. 360 CrimPC. This provision grants the AP a formal right of opposition, but its scope is not explicitly defined in the law.

The interpretation of Art. 360 CrimPC must be based on a pluralistic analysis of interpretation methods (literal, historical, teleological and systematic), in accordance with the Federal Supreme Court's consistent jurisprudence (BB 150 IV 377 para. 2.2, BB 149 IV 105 para. 3.4).

1. Literal and doctrinal interpretation:

According to a strict literal interpretation, the AP would have an absolute right of opposition, without any condition or reason required (SCHWARZENEGGER, Commentary on the StPO, 3rd ed. 2020, nos. 10 et seq. on Art. 360 CrimPC; GREINER/JAGGI, Basle Commentary on the StPO, 2nd ed. 2014, nos. 28 et seq. on Art. 360 CrimPC).

However, the majority of doctrine and the jurisprudence of the Federal Criminal Court consider that the AP's opposition may only relate to aspects of the indictment affecting its own rights, in particular civil claims or the offences alleged. It may not contest the sentence or general procedural aspects, since it has no legally protected interest in this regard in ordinary procedure (decision of the Federal Criminal Court SK.2011.20 of 14 October 2011; JOSITSCH/SCHMID, Practical Commentary on the StPO, 4th ed. 2023, no. 13 on Art. 360 CrimPC).

2. Historical and parliamentary interpretation:

The parliamentary debates during the adoption of Art. 360 CrimPC revealed an intention not to make the implementation of the simplified procedure subject to the AP's agreement, for fear that this procedure would too often be frustrated by a formal refusal, despite the recognition of civil claims (BB 2006 CE 984 and 1051 et seq.; BB 2007 CN 1026 et seq.).

The adoption of Art. 360 para. 3 CrimPC in its current wording confirms that the indictment in simplified procedure is deemed accepted if the AP has not rejected it in writing within the time limit. The accused, for his part, must formally confirm his agreement (Art. 360 para. 2 CrimPC).

3. Teleological and systematic interpretation:

The objective of the simplified procedure is to allow procedural efficiency and expeditiousness, while ensuring that the AP's rights are respected (BB 2005 1057 et seq., 1272). Granting the AP an absolute right of opposition would run counter to this objective, as it could, for any reason,…