Facts
The case concerns a farmer named [X.] , who in 2006 cultivated, harvested, and processed hemp plants on his farm into feed cubes to be fed to his livestock. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Lucerne appealed the acquittal of the farmer by the High Court of the Canton of Lucerne. It requested that [X.] be convicted of attempted unauthorized marketing of agricultural production means subject to licensing requirements (Art. 173 para. 1 lit. k former Agricultural Act in conjunction with Art. 21 para. 1 former Criminal Code) or, alternatively, of attempted application of prohibited substances in agricultural production (Art. 48 para. 1 lit. b Food Act in conjunction with Art. 21 para. 1 former Criminal Code).
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the case for a new assessment by the lower court. It concluded that [X.] cannot be punished for attempted unauthorized marketing of production means subject to licensing requirements, as the feeding to his own livestock does not constitute marketing. However, [X.] has fulfilled the elements of the attempted offense of violating the Food Act (Art. 48 para. 1 lit. b and para. 2 Food Act) by intending to feed hemp, a substance prohibited by the…