Facts

The case concerns an individual, X., who was the subject of a provisional order by the president of the cantonal court of Appenzell Ausserrhoden, prohibiting certain statements about a bank and its employees. X. did not contest this order within the time limit and subsequently made statements contrary to the prohibition. He was convicted of non-compliance with a decision of the authority (Art. 292 SCC) by the cantonal court and then by the higher court.

The key facts are as follows

  • On 8 September 1992, the president of the cantonal court of Appenzell Ausserrhoden issued a provisional order prohibiting X. from making certain statements about a bank and its employees.
  • X. did not contest this order within the time limit.
  • X. subsequently made statements contrary to the prohibition.
  • He was convicted of non-compliance with a decision of the authority (Art. 292 SCC) by the cantonal court and then by the higher court.

Considerations

The Federal Court examined the question of whether the criminal judge can examine the legality of a provisional measures decision rendered by the civil judge in the context of the criminal prosecution for non-compliance with a decision of the authority. The Federal Court considered that the question of the legality of the provisional order was not relevant in this case, as the defendant had not contested the order within the time limit.

The Federal Court also examined the question of the subsidiarity of Article 292 SCC with respect to other special provisions punishing non-compliance. It considered that Article 292 SCC is a subsidiary article…