Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 17.12.2025, 6B_525/2025
Facts
In the court of first instance, B.________ was found guilty of sexual acts with a child and child pornography involving his goddaughter, A. He was given a suspended custodial sentence, a fine, and ordered to pay a symbolic one franc to A. for non-pecuniary damage.
On appeal, the Fribourg Cantonal Court acquitted B.________, giving him the benefit of the doubt, and referred A.________ to civil court for her claims. A.________ (the appellant) then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the acquittal be overturned, B.________ (the respondent) be convicted, and her civil claims be granted, namely one franc for non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of her legal fees.
Legal Analysis
According toArt. 81 para. 1 let. b item 5 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF), the complainant has standing to appeal in criminal matters if the contested decision may affect the adjudication of their civil claims. These claims, based on civil law (primarily for compensation for damages and non-pecuniary loss underArt. 41 of the Code of Obligations (CO)), must have been validly formulated during the criminal proceedings.
A civil claim joined to criminal proceedings is intended to allow the victim to obtain effective compensation for their injury while benefiting from procedural advantages. It must not be used by the complainant to substitute for the public prosecutor or to satisfy a desire for vengeance.
To obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage (Art. 49 CO), the infringement must be objectively serious and subjectively felt by the victim as moral suffering justifying compensation. Under the principle of party disposition, it is the complainant's responsibility to quantify and substantiate their claims.
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court had to determine whether a claim for non-pecuniary damage limited to a symbolic one franc was sufficient to establish the complainant's standing to appeal against an acquittal.
The Court noted that the appellant had limited her claim to a symbolic one franc without providing details on the extent or amount of her non-pecuniary damage. By failing to formulate effective and quantified civil claims when she could have done so, the appellant did not demonstrate that her goal was to obtain actual civil compensation. Such a symbolic claim does not establish that the harm suffered was felt as moral suffering significant enough to justify compensation under Art. 49 CO.
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's objective was not civil compensation, but rather to secure a criminal conviction. However, that is not the purpose of an adhesive civil action. The criminal acquittal therefore has no concrete influence on the adjudication of her symbolic one-franc claim, which she may still pursue before a civil court. Consequently, the condition set out in Art. 81 para. 1 let. b item 5 LTF is not met.
Issue
The Federal Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible, as the complainant lacked standing. The request for legal aid was denied on the grounds that the appeal had no prospect of success, and the court costs were charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Justine Arnal and Camille Perrier Depeursinge
