Facts
The appellant [X.] was found guilty by the High Court of the Canton of Solothurn of multiple offenses against the Federal Act on Protection from Passive Smoking and was sentenced to a fine of Fr. 600.--. The appellant had tolerated smoking outside the authorized smoking room in his restaurant and, contrary to the authorization, used the guest room as a smoking room.
The appellant requested in a criminal appeal that he be acquitted of the charge of offense against the Federal Act on Protection from Passive Smoking and that the costs of the previous proceedings be borne by the state. He also requested a reasonable party compensation.
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and imposed court costs of Fr. 2'000.-- on the appellant.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the question of whether the lower court had rightly conducted the appeal proceedings in writing. The appellant argued that the lower court had not followed the legal assessment of the first-instance judgment and therefore should have held an oral hearing.
The Federal Court decided that the lower court had rightly conducted the appeal proceedings in writing. It referred to the fact that appeal proceedings are generally oral, but written appeal proceedings are admissible if only legal questions are to be decided or if only minor offenses are the subject of the first-instance judgment.
The Federal Court also examined the question of whether the lower court had rightly imposed the costs of the appeal proceedings on the appellant. The appellant argued that he had won, as the lower court had overturned the…