Facts
The case concerns a person, [S.], who was subject to a salary seizure in August 1974, with a monthly deduction of 1'230 Swiss francs. However, their actual income during the seizure period was below the minimum vital amount, totaling only 5'000 Swiss francs from November 1974 to March 1975. Subsequently, [S.] started working as an employee with a net monthly salary of 2'890 Swiss francs as of April 1975, which led to a new salary seizure of 1'570 Swiss francs in July 1975. [S.] made only one payment of 1'570 Swiss francs during the entire seizure period.
The cantonal court convicted [S.] of embezzlement of seized salary, committed between April and July 1975, to a suspended prison sentence. The decision was brought before the SCC, which partially admitted the appeal for annulment and referred the case back to the cantonal court for a new decision.
Considerations
The SCC considered that the principle of balancing excess income with temporary losses applies to both dependent and independent income. There is no reason not to apply this principle when income variations are due to a change in professional activity.
In this case, the income conditions before and after April 1, 1975, were so different that refusing to compensate excess income and losses would be shocking. It would also be contradictory to recognize the old…