[ad_1]
A delegation from the Federal Parliament’s business audit commissions visited the Federal Criminal Court in Bellinzona this week. Parliamentarians wanted to get an idea of how the institution has recovered from the “moral decline” that the CH Media 2019 newspapers had made public. Auditors found that the prosecution had not smoothed things out, but led to further escalation. A process has occurred that is unique in federal justice: the dispute within the court led to a criminal complaint.
Federal criminal judge Andrea Blum (SVP) has denounced the three members of the administrative commission of the Federal Supreme Court for defamation. They are President of the Federal Supreme Court Ulrich Meyer (SP), who will retire at the end of the year, Vice President Martha Niquille (CVP), who is expected as the new President of the Federal Supreme Court, and Federal Judge Yves Donzallaz (SVP) , which is in the headlines for being yours. Party no longer wants.
An extraordinary prosecutor is investigating
The Federal Prosecutor’s Office confirms that it has received the criminal complaint and that it has appointed an extraordinary prosecutor. In doing so, he wanted to exclude any appearance of bias. Federal prosecutors meet with federal criminal court judges in negotiations.
Ulrich Weder, a retired Zurich prosecutor, took over the case. If you want to initiate proceedings, you will first have to petition parliament to lift the immunity of federal judges. All the judges involved do not want to comment.
Research shows what it’s all about. The three accused federal judges examined the differences in federal criminal court in an oversight report. In it, they accused Blum of having brought the unresolved issues into court through his party colleague Pirmin Schwander to the National Council. If a single judge approaches a council member directly and provides information, they are committing a violation of official secrecy, the report says.
Blum and other federal criminal judges have demanded that the federal court correct the report. Meanwhile, audit committees have determined that the report contains errors. The claim that a judge could commit a breach of official secrecy in this way is incorrect, for example. The Federal Supreme Court did not respond to a request to correct the report. It is still available online.
This is a problem for criticized federal criminal judges. How are they supposed to be able to do justice convincingly when they are accused by the higher court of not complying with the law? So the dispute escalated.
In a previous statement, the Federal Supreme Court denied having made the accusation against Blum. It is just an abstract statement. The Federal Supreme Court admitted, however, that the report allowed “misinterpretations.”
Blum also accuses Meyer of duress
Blum also made more accusations against Meyer. She denounced him, among other things, under duress. It is about sexist sayings he made about her during the investigation. Shortly before Meyer stepped in front of the television camera to apologize for it, he sent her a voice message. In it, he pressured her to call him immediately and accept his apology. If he couldn’t say on TV that she accepted his apology, the tabloid media would start a mud fight. That hurts the Federal Criminal Court, for which it would be responsible.
It is the presumption of innocence. This ruling usually applies to disputes that judges have to judge and not to those in which they are involved.
