Facts

Parties:

  • [A.] (appellant), represented by attorney Dr. Nicolas Bracher,
  • [B.] Sàrl and [C.] (respondents 1 and 2), represented by attorneys Christian Lüscher and Nicolas Rouiller,
  • [D.] Company (respondent 3), represented by attorney Christian Lüscher,
  • Public Prosecutor's Office III of the Canton of Zurich, Dept. of qualified economic crimes and international legal assistance.

Facts:

[A.] is being investigated by the Public Prosecutor's Office III of the Canton of Zurich for suspected breach of trust. He is accused of violating his duties of care as managing director and chairman of the board of [E. AG] and causing damage in the millions. He is also alleged to have received retrocessions and commissions, concealed them, and retained them for personal enrichment.

The Public Prosecutor's Office has admitted [B.] Sàrl and [C.] as private plaintiffs and granted them full access to the case files. [A.] challenged this decision but was dismissed by the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich. In a further proceeding, [D.] Company was admitted as a private plaintiff and also granted access to the case files. [A.] also filed an appeal against this, which was also dismissed.

[A.] now files two appeals in criminal matters to the Federal Supreme Court and requests the annulment of the higher court decisions.

Considerations

The proceedings 1B_55/2021 and 1B_57/2021 concern the same criminal proceedings against [A.] and have the same legal questions. The challenged decisions of the Higher Court are largely similarly reasoned, and [A.] makes the same applications. The proceedings were therefore combined and dealt with in a single judgment.

Two decisions of the Higher Court are challenged, in which the appellant's standing to appeal against the admission of the respondents as private plaintiffs in the criminal proceedings and the granting of access to the case files was denied. The appeal in criminal matters to the Federal Supreme Court is in principle admissible, provided the requirements under Art. 92 f. FSCA are met. The appellant also alleges a denial of justice by the lower court, which is why the appeals are admissible.

The appellant alleges a violation of Art. 382 para. 1 CrimPC by the lower court. According to this provision,…