In its ruling 6B_543/2025 of August 19, 2026, the Federal Supreme Court clarified that alternative charges based on the accused individual are permissible. The public prosecutor’s office may therefore bring charges against multiple individuals if it is established that a crime was committed but it remains unclear which of them committed it.
Facts of the Case: Dispute Between Two Dog Owners
The Federal Supreme Court’s ruling is based on a simple walk: On January 10, 2022, two dog owners met with their dogs in the municipality of Meilen. Their accounts of what happened next are diametrically opposed.
According to one version, the complainant was attacked by the other woman: her hair was grabbed, her face was scratched, and she was ultimately spat on. According to the other version, it was the other way around: the complainant allegedly pulled her opponent by the hair, knocked her to the ground, held her by the neck, sat on her, and did not let go until the police arrived.
The public prosecutor’s office was unable to convincingly verify either version. It therefore filed separate charges against both women—each was charged with the other’s version of the incident. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich ruled that this constituted an impermissible alternative charge based on the perpetrator and dismissed both cases.
The Federal Supreme Court reverses the decision: Indictment yes, but no dismissal of the case
The Federal Supreme Court overturned the dismissal. It held that Article 325 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits alternative charges and that the rationale behind them is not limited to differing accounts of the course of events but may, in principle, also extend to the identity of the perpetrator.
It is not decisive in this regard that the prosecution must already know who committed the offense. If there is sufficient suspicion against several individuals, the prosecution may allow the court to decide on the assessment of the evidence and the question of perpetration. This does not constitute a definitive procedural obstacle.
Consolidation of Proceedings and Joint Indictments
To prevent conflicting judgments, the consolidation of proceedings under Art. 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code is essential. If the proceedings are consolidated, the same court can jointly assess the same facts, the same evidence, and the mutually exclusive accounts.
For the defense, this means that a “clean acquittal” can be achieved when the prosecution charges multiple defendants jointly, provided that those defendants are all involved in the same incident. It makes sense to consolidate the proceedings rather than conduct separate trials. In doing so, the facts of the case must be precisely described so that each accused person knows exactly what they are charged with. And the golden rule must be:
Safeguarding the rights of the defense:
The alternative indictment does not replace a careful evaluation of the evidence; rather, it makes such an evaluation possible in the first place.
What the Ruling Teaches Us
The ruling prevents an unclear sequence of events from disappearing into the legal limbo of case dismissal simply because two parties are accusing each other. The court emphasizes the principle of “in dubio pro duriore”: If a conviction and an acquittal are equally likely, charges must be filed.
At the same time, the principle of indictment remains intact. The indictment must precisely identify the accused and the facts alleged against them; the defense must know what it is defending against.
And we’ll take that with us on our next walk
For dog owners, this case serves as a reminder that a near-collision on a walking path can quickly turn into a situation that neither the dogs nor the people can control. A brief exchange, a misunderstanding over a photo, or a dispute over who has the right of way can escalate.
Legally, however, it does not matter who, in hindsight, portrays herself most convincingly as the victim. The Federal Supreme Court requires a joint, thorough investigation of the actual events. Precisely because both women described the other as the aggressor, handling the case separately would hardly have served the truth.
The ruling is thus more than a dogmatic decision regarding prosecutorial practice: It serves as a reminder that the criminal justice system faces particular challenges when human conflicts do not neatly fit into the roles of perpetrator and victim.
FAQs
-
What did the Federal Supreme Court rule regarding alternative charges based on the perpetrator in its decision 6B_543/2025?
In its ruling of August 19, 2026, the Federal Supreme Court held that alternative charges based on the perpetrator are permissible. Accordingly, the public prosecutor’s office may indict multiple individuals if a criminal offense has been established but it remains unclear which of the accused committed it.
-
What is an alternative charge based on the accused individual?
In the case of an alternative charge based on the perpetrator, the focus is not on whether a crime was committed, but on who committed it. The prosecution may therefore charge multiple suspects and allow the court to decide on the assessment of the evidence and the question of who committed the crime.
-
Why are consolidated cases and joint indictments important?
When related proceedings are consolidated pursuant to Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the same court assesses the same facts, the same evidence, and the mutually exclusive accounts of the parties involved collectively. This prevents conflicting judgments and enables a thorough determination of the substantive truth.
-
What are the requirements for a perpetrator-based alternative charge?
The principle of indictment also applies to an alternative charge based on the defendant: The indictment must precisely describe the accused and the facts of the case alleged against them. The defense must know what it is defending against; an alternative charge does not replace a careful evaluation of the evidence.
-
Why was the case involving two dog owners relevant to criminal law?
Two dog owners gave diametrically opposed accounts of a physical altercation: each claimed to have been attacked by the other. Because neither version could be verified, the public prosecutor’s office charged both women; the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that this was permissible and that the court must determine who was at fault.
