Facts
The case concerns a man who worked as an electrical installation apprentice at a company from 1963 to 1967 and was exposed to unprotected asbestos during that time. In December 2005, he was diagnosed with a malignant mesothelioma, which he attributed to the former asbestos exposure. In July 2006, he filed a request for victim assistance (compensation and satisfaction), which was rejected by the cantonal victim assistance office, as the alleged criminal offense had been committed before the Victim Assistance Act came into force on January 1, 1993. The widow and sole heir of the deceased filed a complaint against this decision.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upholds the complaint. It states that in the case of negligent offenses with a large time gap between the alleged criminal act and the occurrence of the legally relevant result, it is not the negligent conduct alone, but the occurrence of the criminally relevant result that is decisive for the temporal scope of application of the Victim Assistance Act. The criminal offense is therefore to be considered "committed" at the time of the occurrence of the result, within the meaning of Art. 12 para. 3 of the Victim Assistance Ordinance.
The Federal Supreme Court bases this interpretation on the victim-oriented approach of victim assistance law. In contrast to criminal law, where the rules on the statute of limitations are more offender-oriented, the focus in victim…