Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [A.]
  • Respondents: 1. Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Basel-Stadt, 2. [B.]

Facts:

  • [A.] filed a criminal complaint against [B.] on December 3, 2021, for forgery and obtaining false certification.
  • The allegation concerned a land register entry regarding a co-ownership share in the property "Casa [C.] " in [U.] .
  • The Public Prosecutor's Office of Basel-Stadt did not accept the criminal complaint with a decision dated March 14, 2022.
  • The Appellate Court of the Canton of Basel-Stadt did not enter into the appeal with a decision dated January 26, 2023.
  • [A.] filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Supreme Court on March 13, 2023.

Considerations

1. The appellant is entitled to file an appeal in criminal matters under Art. 81 para. 1 FSCA, as he participated in the proceedings before the lower court and has a legally protected interest in the annulment CO amendment of the challenged decision. The question of whether the lower court wrongly did not enter into the appeal is subject to review by the Federal Supreme Court.

2. The lower court denied the appellant's standing to appeal, arguing that no targeted disadvantage to the appellant could be established and that his property rights were not directly violated by the change in the ownership share of the "Casa [C.] ". Furthermore, the document-related offense in question was not part of a harmful property offense.

3. The appeal to the Federal Supreme Court must be reasoned (Art. 42 para. 1 FSCA). The appellant does not sufficiently address the considerations of the lower court in his submission, particularly the alternative reasoning in which the lower court explains why the appeal would be obviously unfounded. The appellant merely asserts that the respondent committed a document-related offense without naming concrete…