Facts
On August 14, 1995, the Municipal Council of Oberrohrdorf-Staretschwil filed a criminal complaint against [H.] for violation of the Federal Act on Civil Protection. [H.] was accused of failing to comply with the two summons to the assignment report on May 4, 1995 and June 23, 1995 without an exemption.
The District Court of Baden acquitted [H.] on June 12, 1996. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Aargau then appealed, requesting that [H.] be found guilty of multiple violations of the Civil Protection Act and sentenced to a six-week suspended prison sentence with a four-year probation period, as well as a fine of 500 Swiss francs.
The High Court of the Canton of Aargau, in partially granting the appeal, found [H.] guilty of multiple violations of the Civil Protection Act on December 3, 1997 and remanded the case to the lower court for the determination of the appropriate sentence.
[H.] appeals the High Court's judgment with a federal nullity appeal.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the nullity appeal. It states that, unlike the Military Criminal Code and the Civil Service Act, the Civil Protection Act does not distinguish between refusal of service and absence from service on the one hand, and disregard of a summons on the other. The intentional failure to comply with a summons to civil protection service is therefore always punishable as a violation of the Civil Protection Act, regardless of the perpetrator's motives and intentions, as well as the circumstances of the offense.
If a person who has intentionally failed to comply with a summons to civil protection service is subsequently…