Facts
On 12 April 2013, an approach occurred in Swiss airspace between two commercial aircraft. Air traffic controller [X.] granted the crew of zzz permission to climb to flight level 380 without previously verifying the identity of the inquiring crew. The crew of yyy, who had made the request, then climbed to flight level 380, although they had not received clearance. The smallest distance between the two aircraft was 0.8 nautical miles horizontally and 650 feet vertically. The Federal Prosecutor's Office found [X.] guilty of negligent disruption of public traffic and sentenced him to a conditional fine. The Federal Criminal Court confirmed the conviction and sentenced [X.] to a conditional fine.
[X.] appeals, requesting that the judgment of the Federal Criminal Court be overturned and that he be acquitted of the charge of negligent disruption of public traffic. He complains of an incorrect establishment of the facts and a violation of his right to be heard.
Considerations
The Federal Court examines the complaint of incorrect establishment of the facts and violation of the right to be heard. It finds that the lower court did not establish the facts in an obviously incorrect or arbitrary manner. The lower court took into account the findings of the Swiss Transportation Safety Investigation Board (SUST) and concluded that there was a concrete risk of an aircraft collision.
The Federal Court also examines the complaint of a violation of Art. 237 para. 2 SCC. It finds that the lower court correctly assumed that there was a concrete danger to life and limb. The significant breach of the safety distance and the triggering of the avoidance order by the traffic warning and collision avoidance system indicate that there…