The AI workspace for legal professionals

  • Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
  • Document automation
  • Matter management
  • Hosted in the EU and Switzerland

Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)

Try for freeBook a demo

Lack of standing and insufficient reasoning on criminal complaint

6B_293/2008Federal Supreme Court / Criminal DivisionMay 16, 2008Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The appellant challenged a cantonal non-entry decision concerning a criminal complaint against two officials for fraud and abuse of authority. The Federal Supreme Court held that he lacked standing and that his filing consisted only of inadmissible appellatory criticism, failing to meet the reasoning requirements of Art. 106(2) BGG. The president therefore did not enter on the complaint under Art. 108 BGG. The request for free legal aid was refused because the appeal had no chance of success, and court costs of CHF 800 were imposed on the appellant.

Omnilex headnote

Art. 108 BGG, Art. 106 Abs. 2 BGG; standing and reasoning requirements in summary non-entry proceedings. A complaint may be declared inadmissible without a merits review where the appellant lacks procedural standing and the submissions amount merely to appellatory criticism. The Federal Supreme Court may refuse to enter on the matter in the simplified procedure if the reasoning requirements are not met. Legal aid under Art. 64 BGG is excluded when the appeal is manifestly hopeless. Court costs are ordinarily imposed on the unsuccessful party; a reduction under Art. 65 Abs. 2 BGG requires circumstances not present where the party's litigation conduct does not justify relief.

Full text

{T 0/2}
6B_293/2008 /hum

Urteil vom 16. Mai 2008
Strafrechtliche Abteilung

Besetzung
Bundesrichter Schneider, Präsident,
Gerichtsschreiber Monn.

Parteien
X.________,
Beschwerdeführer,

gegen

Generalprokurator des Kantons Bern, Hochschulstrasse 17, 3012 Bern,
Beschwerdegegner.

Gegenstand
Nichteintretensbeschluss (Betrug, Amtsmissbrauch),

Beschwerde gegen den Beschluss des Obergerichts des Kantons Bern, Anklagekammer, vom 20. März 2008.

Der Präsident zieht in Erwägung:

1.
Die Beschwerde richtet sich dagegen, dass auf eine Strafanzeige gegen zwei Amtspersonen wegen Betrugs und Amtsmissbrauchs nicht eingetreten wurde. Wie der Beschwerdeführer aus früheren Urteilen weiss, ist er zur vorliegenden Beschwerde, die sich überdies auf unzulässige appellatorische Kritik beschränkt und deshalb den Begründungsanforderungen von Art. 106 Abs. 2 BGG nicht genügt, nicht legitimiert (Urteile 6B_216_2007 vom 12. Juni 2007, 6B_407/2007 vom 16. August 2007 und 6B_758/2007 vom 4. Dezember 2007). Darauf ist im Verfahren nach Art. 108 BGG nicht einzutreten.

2.
Die Gerichtskosten sind dem Beschwerdeführer aufzuerlegen (Art. 66 Abs. 1 BGG). Das Gesuch um unentgeltliche Rechtspflege ist in Anwendung von Art. 64 BGG abzuweisen, weil die Rechtsbegehren aussichtslos erschienen. Eine Reduktion der Gerichtsgebühr kommt schon wegen der Art der Prozessführung des Beschwerdeführers nicht in Betracht (Art. 65 Abs. 2 BGG).

Demnach erkennt der Präsident:

1.
Auf die Beschwerde wird nicht eingetreten.

2.
Das Gesuch um unentgeltliche Rechtspflege wird abgewiesen.

3.
Die Gerichtskosten von Fr. 800.-- werden dem Beschwerdeführer auferlegt.

4.
Dieses Urteil wird den Parteien und dem Obergericht des Kantons Bern, Anklagekammer, schriftlich mitgeteilt.
Lausanne, 16. Mai 2008
Im Namen der Strafrechtlichen Abteilung
des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts
Der Präsident: Der Gerichtsschreiber:

Schneider Monn

Keywords

standingreasoning requirementsnon-entrycriminal complaintlegal aidcourt costsappellatory criticism

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the appellant had standing to bring the criminal complaint appeal and complied with the reasoning requirements.

Extracted holding

He was not entitled to appeal and his filing consisted only of inadmissible appellatory criticism; the complaint did not satisfy Art. 106(2) BGG.

Extracted reasoning

The court referred to earlier judgments involving the same appellant and held that he lacked standing. The appeal was also insufficiently reasoned, so the court could not examine it on the merits.

Key legal question

Whether the Federal Supreme Court should enter on the complaint under the summary procedure of Art. 108 BGG.

Extracted holding

No; the complaint was not admissible and therefore could not be examined in that procedure.

Extracted reasoning

Because the appeal was manifestly inadmissible for lack of standing and insufficient reasoning, the president declined to enter on it under Art. 108 BGG.

Key legal question

Whether legal aid should be granted.

Extracted holding

No; the request was rejected because the appeal had no prospect of success.

Extracted reasoning

Under Art. 64 BGG, legal aid is unavailable when the requested remedies are hopeless.

Key legal question

How court costs should be allocated.

Extracted holding

The court costs were imposed on the appellant, with no reduction granted.

Extracted reasoning

As the appellant's procedural conduct did not justify a reduction, the full fee was charged to him under Art. 66(1) and Art. 65(2) BGG.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.