Facts
The case concerns a managing director named [E.], who as the responsible head of the company E.-Reinigung hired the Italian national [P.] as an assistant. Although the cantonal labor office of Solothurn rejected the application for a work permit for [P.] on October 3, 1989, [E.] continued to employ him until November 27, 1989. To conceal this, [E.] did not list the correct name of [P.] on six payroll statements, but instead, in agreement with his father-in-law M.R., the name of his wife A.R. The salary was each time received by M.R. for his son-in-law [P.], and the social benefits were also to be billed under the name A.R.
On May 31, 1990, [E.] was sentenced by the President of the District Court of Olten-Gösgen to 14 days' probationary imprisonment for employing a foreigner without a work permit and for continued forgery of documents. The High Court of the Canton of Solothurn dismissed her appeal against the charge of forgery of documents on September 5, 1991.
[E.] then filed a federal nullity complaint with the request to set aside the judgment of the High Court.
Considerations
The Federal Court upheld the complaint. It stated that the assumption of forgery in the present case was contrary to federal law. Payroll statements do not have increased credibility, unless there are special legal provisions. The lower court did not rely on such provisions.
Whether [E.] violated social security or tax regulations is…