Facts
The complainant [A.] was found guilty by penal order of 22 February 2024 of grossly violating traffic regulations and was sentenced to a fine and a default fine. The penal order became final and unappealable.
The Bern cantonal police summoned [A.] for a police interview to clarify whether he knew or should have known about a driving ban. [A.] objected to the hearing and argued that a new investigation would violate the principle of "ne bis in idem".
The High Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed the complaint, insofar as it was entertained. [A.] filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Supreme Court and requested that the decision be set aside and the public prosecutor's office be ordered to issue a decision not to prosecute.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the contested decision could cause irreparable harm. The complainant argued that such harm was imminent if the criminal proceedings were conducted in violation of the prohibition of double prosecution.
The Federal Supreme Court stated that the initiation of criminal proceedings alone does not constitute a legal disadvantage that cannot be remedied by a subsequent favorable final or intermediate decision. The prohibition of double prosecution requires that the person concerned and the established facts be identical.
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the identity…