Facts
On November 24, 2005, the Association for Asbestos Victims and E.M. filed a criminal complaint with the Interrogation Office of the Canton of Glarus against S.A., T.A. and other unknown perpetrators in the environment of Eternit (Switzerland) AG and the Swiss Accident Insurance Company (SUVA) for negligent homicide and bodily harm. On August 28, 2006, [F.] filed another criminal complaint for intentional serious bodily harm. On September 18, 2006, [J.] and [S.] filed a criminal complaint against unknown perpetrators in the environment of Eternit (Switzerland) AG for criminal acts against life and limb.
The Interrogation Office of the Canton of Glarus discontinued the criminal investigation on October 9, 2006 for intentional and negligent homicide and bodily harm, as the offenses were time-barred. The appeals of the complainants against the discontinuation of the proceedings were dismissed by the Cantonal Court.
The heirs of the deceased [J.] and [S.] as well as the Association for Asbestos Victims, E.M. and [F.] then filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court holds that according to the law, the time of the culpable act and not the time of the occurrence of the result is decisive for the commencement of the limitation period. This means that negligent result offenses can become time-barred before the statutory result has occurred.
The Federal Supreme Court sees no contradiction in this interpretation with the function and rationale of the statute of limitations. While the legal peace may still be disturbed even in the case of a long-past criminal act and the need for compensation may exist. On the other hand, the difficulties of proof for the…