Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [A.] , represented by attorney Ingrid Indermaur
  • Respondent: [B.] , head of the social department of the city of Opfikon
  • Other parties involved: Public Prosecutor's Office II of the Canton of Zurich, Public Prosecutor General's Office of the Canton of Zurich, Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, III. Criminal Chamber

Facts:

  • The social authority of the city of Opfikon filed a criminal complaint against [A.] on April 6, 2017, on suspicion of fraud or improper receipt of social welfare benefits.
  • The Zurich-Sihl Public Prosecutor's Office conducted a criminal investigation and filed charges against [A.] and [C.] .
  • The District Court of Bülach acquitted both defendants, whereupon the social authority and the public prosecutor's office filed an appeal.
  • [A.] filed a criminal complaint against [B.] on May 31, 2019, for various offenses, including false accusation, obstruction of justice, forgery, and abuse of office.
  • The Public Prosecutor's Office II of the Canton of Zurich referred the criminal complaint to the cantonal Higher Court, which refused to authorize the criminal investigation.
  • [A.] filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court to challenge the refusal to authorize the investigation.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examines the appellant's standing to appeal. Pursuant to Art. 89 para. 1 FSCA, the appellant must have a legitimate interest in the annulment or amendment of the challenged decision. The appellant is considered an injured party within the meaning of Art. 115 CrimPC with regard to the allegations of false accusation and violation of official secrecy. However, she lacks the status of an injured party with regard to the other allegations, which makes the appeal inadmissible to that extent.

The Federal Supreme Court then addresses the appellant's formal objection that the lower court violated the duty to state reasons by fully referring to the public prosecutor's referral decision. The Federal Supreme Court finds that the lower court did not violate the duty to state reasons, as it adopted the public prosecutor's reasoning and supplemented it in part.

With regard to the…