Facts
The case concerns G. H., against whom the Federal Tax Administration opened a criminal procedure for suspected tax fraud. After a supplementary investigation, it was found that the tax inspector had made an error when entering income for the year 1985, and the procedure was discontinued without costs for G. H. However, his request for compensation for defense costs was rejected.
G. H. then filed an appeal with the Criminal Chamber of the Federal Court, requesting compensation for defense costs under Article 99 of the Federal Act on Administrative Criminal Law (VStrR).
Considerations
The Criminal Chamber of the Federal Court examined the question of whether defense costs are part of the other compensable damages under Article 99, paragraph 1, VStrR. The law provides that the accused against whom the procedure is discontinued is entitled to compensation for defense costs, unless he himself provoked the procedure or prolonged it in an abusive manner.
The Criminal Chamber considered that defense costs are compensable damages, as they are necessary to ensure the defense of the accused. It also emphasized that the right to compensation for defense costs is a consequence of the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental principle of criminal law.
The Criminal Chamber also examined the question of whether the defense costs…