Facts

The appellant, sole proprietor of a business dealing with consumer protection and legal consulting, had been the subject of an indictment issued by the Public Prosecutor of the Canton of Ticino on 24 August 2018 for an offence under the UCA (UCA) and for unlawful practice of the profession of lawyer (art. 29 LAvv/TI). She had objected and the trial had been referred to the Criminal Court.

Subsequently, upon a report by a lawyer for an opposing party in a civil case, a further criminal proceeding had been opened against her for similar offences. On 21 November 2018 the appellant had filed a criminal complaint against the Bar Association of the Canton of Ticino, against the reporting lawyer, against a company and against persons unknown, for numerous offences (racial discrimination, stalking, defamation, false accusation, coercion, perversion of the course of justice and others).

By decision of 11 December 2019 the Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution. The appellant appealed to the Criminal Complaints Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Ticino (CRP), which, by judgment of 27 April 2020, dismissed the appeal to the extent it was admissible and denied legal aid, considering the appeal to be devoid of any prospect of success from the outset due to the manifest absence of evidence of an offence.

By appeal of 1 June 2020 the appellant applied to the Federal Supreme Court requesting annulment of the cantonal judgment and the granting of legal aid. The Public Prosecutor's Office did not submit observations. The Federal Supreme Court decided the case under the simplified procedure of art. 108 para. 1 let. b FSCA, as President of the Criminal Law Court.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines of its own motion the admissibility of the appeal. As a private claimant, the appellant has standing under art. 81 para. 1 let. b no. 5 FSCA only if the contested decision may affect the adjudication of her civil claims. It is for her to substantiate the facts supporting standing (art. 42 para. 2 FSCA). Case law is restrictive and, in offences against honour, the injured party must indicate the harm suffered and the claims for compensation (art. 41 et seq. CO) or moral redress, requirements that presuppose an objectively serious infringement that is also subjectively perceived as such.

In the present case the appellant merely generically invokes compensation claims for economic damage arising from the publication of the indictment and from the failure to protect personal data, without explaining to what extent the contested decision may affect such claims. The alleged harm is attributable to the criminal proceedings in which the appellant has the status of accused, so any claims must be asserted under art. 429 et seq. CrimPC (compensation for economic loss and redress for moral wrong). The lack of relevant reasoning entails the denial of standing on the merits.

Irrespective of standing on the merits, a party may complain of the violation of procedural guarantees equivalent to a formal denial of justice, but may not indirectly call into question the substantive assessment. Complaints relating to the right to be heard (failure to take evidence and insufficient reasoning) do not constitute formal objections distinct from the substantive assessment and are therefore inadmissible for lack of standing.

As to the request for recusal of the President of the CRP and of a judge, the appellant relies solely on the judges' membership of committees (for the bar and for the continuing education of jurists), without indicating grounds for recusal under art. 56 CrimPC. Neither…