Facts
This case concerned the determination of procedural costs in the context of summary penalty proceedings against A. for a traffic violation. The Public Prosecutor's Office in Baden had found A. guilty of a simple violation of traffic regulations by means of a summary penalty order and fined her 300 Swiss francs. At the same time, it imposed procedural costs of a total of 710 Swiss francs, consisting of a "summary penalty order fee" of 400 Swiss francs and "police costs" of 310 Swiss francs.
A. filed an objection to the summary penalty order, but limited it to the issue of costs. The District Court of Baden then reduced the costs to 400 Swiss francs, as the "police costs" of 310 Swiss francs were not owed. However, the Office of the Attorney General of the Canton of Aargau overturned this decision and dismissed the objection to the summary penalty order.
A. then filed a criminal law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that court costs are causal fees that must comply with the principle of cost coverage and equivalence. The principle of equivalence stipulates that a fee must not be in obvious disproportion to the objective value of the service and must be kept within reasonable limits.
In a previous, unpublished decision, the Federal Supreme Court had considered that the summary penalty order fee for speeding offenses should be determined based on the sanction imposed. However, this approach was criticized in the literature, as the procedural costs should only cover the administrative expenses and not represent an additional punishment.
The Federal Supreme Court clarified that the fees according…