Facts
On September 10, 2016, the police were notified that several persons in Basel had knocked over motorcycles and bicycles and thrown chairs and bottles around. In addition to two adults, X., born on November 12, 1999, was also apprehended, who was carrying 2.6 grams of marijuana. The proceedings against X. were later separated from those against the two adult defendants and transferred to the Youth Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn.
On January 17, 2017, the Youth Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn decided not to proceed with the criminal complaint against X., the 2.6 grams of marijuana seized were to be confiscated for destruction, and the costs of the proceedings were to be borne by the state. The lawyer of X. later submitted a fee note and claimed that the decision of January 17, 2017 did not decide on the compensation. The Youth Prosecutor's Office did not enter into the claim for compensation, which was confirmed by the High Court of the Canton of Solothurn.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed X.'s appeal. It stated that according to Article 429 paragraph 2 sentence 1 of the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), the criminal authorities must ex officio examine the claim for compensation of the accused person. The criminal authorities must decide on the compensation in the final decision.
In the present case, the Youth Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn had decided on the costs in its discontinuation decision of January 17, 2017, but not on a possible compensation. X. should have challenged this omission through legal remedies. Since he did not do so, the decision has become legally binding and his subsequent claim for compensation is late.
The Federal Supreme Court stated that there…