Facts
This case involved an attempted violation of the Goods Control Act. The Federal Prosecutor's Office had convicted the responsible person of the sender company, [X.] , with a criminal order for attempted violation of the Goods Control Act. However, upon objection by [X.] , the Federal Criminal Court discontinued the proceedings based on Art. 8 para. 1 and 4 CrimPC in conjunction with Art. 52 CC. The Federal Prosecutor's Office then filed a complaint against this discontinuation.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the complaint of the Federal Prosecutor's Office. It stated that Art. 8 CrimPC does not provide a basis for the court to discontinue the proceedings after the indictment has been filed in the cases of Art. 52 to 54 CC. According to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, Art. 8 CrimPC is only applicable to the procedural stages up to the indictment, but not to the assessment by the court of the merits after the indictment has been filed. Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court examined whether the requirements of Art. 52 CC are met, according to which prosecution, referral to the court or punishment can be waived if the guilt and consequences of the act are minor. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that these requirements are not met in the present case. The defendant was aware of the licensing requirement for the export of the goods, but had not sufficiently trained and supervised his employees. Furthermore, this was…