Full imposition of procedural costs on the accused after objection to a summary penalty order

Facts

The case concerns the cost consequences after an objection to a summary penalty order. The accused [X.] was convicted by the District Court of March for various violations of road traffic legislation. The public prosecutor's office appealed against the decision on costs and compensation, requesting that the procedural costs be fully imposed on [X.] . However, the Cantonal Court of Schwyz dismissed the appeal.

The public prosecutor's office then filed a criminal law appeal to the Federal Supreme Court with the aim of fully imposing the procedural costs on [X.] and not awarding him any compensation.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the public prosecutor's appeal. It stated that under Art. 426 para. 1 CrimPC, the convicted accused must bear the procedural costs. This is mandatory and leaves no room for discretion. The lower court had wrongly assumed that a full imposition of costs would be disproportionate in view of the reduced sentence.

Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court clarified that the accused, in the absence of an acquittal or…