Facts
On August 3, 1961, Schiller, who was residing in Geneva, drove a motor vehicle through the city of Zurich while in an intoxicated state. In the course of the subsequent criminal investigation, the district office (Statthalteramt) of the Zurich district requested the tax administration of the Canton of Geneva to provide information on the accused's income and assets according to the latest tax assessment, in order to determine the fine under Art. 48 para. 2 of the Swiss Criminal Code (StGB). The Geneva Tax Administration rejected the request, citing the duty of confidentiality enshrined in Art. 347 of the Geneva Tax Act.
The district office (Statthalteramt) of the Zurich district then turned to the Indictment Chamber (Anklagekammer) of the Federal Supreme Court, based on Art. 357 of the Swiss Criminal Code (StGB), to compel the competent Geneva authority to release the requested tax certificate.
Considerations
The Indictment Chamber states that in the event of disputes between cantons within the meaning of Art. 357 of the Swiss Criminal Code (StGB), the cantons themselves determine the authority responsible for their representation before the Federal Supreme Court. Since the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich shares the view of the district office (Statthalteramt), there is no reason to deny the latter's legitimacy to invoke the Indictment Chamber.
In criminal matters to which the Swiss Criminal Code (StGB) or another federal law applies, the cantons are obliged to provide legal assistance to each other (Art. 352 StGB). However, the Geneva Tax Administration was able to invoke Art. 347 of the Geneva Tax Act, which constitutes a limitation on federal legal assistance and obligates officials to strictly maintain…