Compensation for Preventive Detention in a Federal Criminal Procedure Delegated to Cantonal Authorities

Facts

In the summer of 1956, members of the entourage of young Arab princes staying in Switzerland made weapons purchases from the arms dealer X. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office then conducted investigations to determine whether these persons and the arms dealer X had violated the ban on exporting weapons. As part of this investigation, Y was arrested on January 25, 1957 and placed in preventive detention.

On March 7, 1957, the Federal Department of Justice and Police delegated the investigation and judgment of the case to the Vaudois authorities. On March 21, 1957, Y was made available to the Vaudois investigating judge, who ordered his release a few days later, on March 26, 1957. The investigating judge then closed his investigation on June 3, 1957 and referred X and Y to the Correctional Police Court of V.

By judgment of October 10, 1957, the court acquitted the two defendants, considering that the sale of the rifles and pistols by X was not an act of executing the export of weapons, but only an unpunished preparatory act, and that Y had not even been the intermediary in this sale.

On November 15, 1957, Y requested the Criminal Chamber of the Federal Tribunal to award him compensation at the expense of the Confederation for the preventive detention he had suffered.

Considerations

The Criminal Chamber of the Federal Tribunal considered that it had jurisdiction to hear Y's claim for compensation regarding the first phase of his detention, i.e., the period of the investigations conducted by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office in accordance with Art. 100 et seq. of the Federal Criminal Procedure Act (PPF).

According to case law, when it comes to offenses falling under federal jurisdiction, the detention that began in the investigation phase under Art. 100 et seq. PPF and continued during the cantonal investigation falls, for the duration of these investigations, under federal law, including the provisions relating to compensation.

The Criminal Chamber then interpreted Art. 122 PPF to mean that "dismissal of the case" also includes the decision to waive prosecution, made by the cantonal judge in charge of the investigation, as well…