Facts
The case concerns a man, [M.], who was found guilty of violating his maintenance obligation towards his family. The municipality of Neuenhof, which had advanced the unpaid subsistence allowances, filed a criminal complaint against [M.] on July 27, 1993, for the months of December 1992 to July 1993. The Baden district court sentenced [M.] to 6 weeks in prison for the months of December 1992 to July 1993. The Argovia cantonal court of appeal upheld the conviction for the months of December 1992 and January 1993, but acquitted [M.] for the other months.
[M.] filed a nullity appeal with the Federal Court, requesting the annulment of the court of appeal's decision and the referral of the case for a new decision. The municipality of Neuenhof and the public prosecutor's office took a position on the appeal.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the question of whether the criminal complaint filed by the municipality of Neuenhof was admissible, considering the 3-month time limit provided for in Article 29 of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC). The Federal Court recalled that the time limit for filing a complaint begins to run when the maintenance obligation debtor culpably fails to fulfill their obligation, i.e., when the debtor resumes payments or finds themselves, without fault, unable to fulfill their obligation due to a lack of means.
The Federal Court also examined the question of determining M.'s available means to fulfill his maintenance obligation. It recalled that the determination of the economic capacity to pay the pension within the meaning of Article 93 of the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (DEBA) must be made by taking into account the overall income of several months.
The Federal Court concluded that the court of appeal's…