Competence of Swiss authorities to prosecute an offense of non-payment of maintenance benefits

Facts

The case concerns a dispute between Klara Zistler, residing in Germany, and her husband, Josef Zistler, a German national, residing in Switzerland. Klara Zistler filed a criminal complaint against her husband for non-payment of maintenance benefits for herself and their child. The Staatsanwaltschaft of the canton of Aargau rejected the complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Klara Zistler then appealed to the SCC, requesting that the authorities of the canton of Aargau be declared competent to prosecute her husband.

The key facts are as follows

• On October 10, 1955, Klara Zistler filed a criminal complaint against her husband for non-payment of maintenance benefits.
• The Staatsanwaltschaft of the canton of Aargau rejected the complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction, considering that the plaintiff's place of residence is in Germany.
• Klara Zistler appealed to the SCC, requesting that the authorities of the canton of Aargau be declared competent to prosecute her husband.

Considerations

The SCC examined the question of the competence of Swiss authorities to prosecute an offense of non-payment of maintenance benefits committed by a foreign national residing in Switzerland. The Court considered that, according to Article 3 of the Swiss Criminal Code, the offense is considered to have been committed in Switzerland if the perpetrator acted in Switzerland, even if the result of the offense occurred abroad.

The Court also examined the question of territorial jurisdiction and considered that, according to Article 346 of the Swiss Criminal Code, the place where the offense was committed is competent to prosecute the perpetrator, even if the result of the offense occurred abroad. The Court concluded that the authorities of the canton of Aargau were competent to prosecute Josef Zistler for non-payment of…