Facts
The District Court of St. Gallen convicted the respondent X. of multiple intentional acts of animal cruelty and violations of the Food Act and the Therapeutic Products Act. X. appealed, whereupon the Cantonal Court acquitted him of the charge of intentional violation of the Food Act and the Therapeutic Products Act. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of St. Gallen filed an appeal in criminal matters against the acquittal of the charge of intentional violation of the Therapeutic Products Act.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that the offense under Art. 87 para. 1 lit. f in conjunction with Art. 86 para. 1 lit. c TPA is not applicable to the animal keeper. Although the animal keeper as a food producer is generally responsible for food safety and has a duty of care in the handling of veterinary medicinal products, since a veterinary medicinal product agreement (TAM agreement) had been concluded with the herd veterinarian, the latter had been responsible for the proper handling of the veterinary medicinal products. The respondent could not be held responsible for the violation of the duties of the herd veterinarian under the TAM agreement, and therefore had to be acquitted of the charge of unauthorized dispensing of medicinal products.
The Federal…