Dismissal of the appeal against the final judgment for court costs

Facts

The appellant [X.] was sentenced to a conditionally enforceable prison sentence of 16 months for violations of the Narcotics Act by a criminal judgment of June 18, 2004, and had to bear two-thirds of the court fees of the first and second instance as well as the costs for the care of the plant material. On November 10, 2005, a detailed cost statement was issued, obliging [X.] to pay CHF 85,265.65. [X.] appealed against the cost statement, which was dismissed. By payment order of September 4, 2007, the judicial administration of the canton of Basel-Landschaft initiated debt enforcement. [X.] lodged a legal objection, whereupon the judicial administration filed a request for a judgment, which was granted by the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft by judgment of May 27, 2008.

Against this judgment, [X.] lodged an appeal in civil matters on September 3, 2008, with the requests to revoke it and remand the case for rejudgment.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in civil matters, insofar as it was admissible. The appellant had alleged a violation of Art. 30 para. 1 Cst. and complained that the judicial administration was, like the Civil and Criminal Law Division, a division of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft and therefore should not have decided on the appeal of another division of the same court. However, the Federal Supreme Court found that the claim from the judgment or decision-imposed costs belongs to the canton and that in the proceedings for final judgment, it is no longer decided on the claim itself, but on another set of facts, namely whether the claim has been paid, has expired, or has been deferred.

The appellant had also alleged a violation of Art. 80 DEBA, in that the Higher Court had based the judgment on the cost statement of November 10, 2005, although in the payment order, only the criminal judgment of June 18, 2004, was stated as the basis of the claim. However, the Federal Supreme Court found that the cost claim is based on the criminal judgment of June 18, 2004, and that the mention of the criminal judgment in the payment order made it clear to the appellant what claim was being enforced.

The appellant had also claimed that the cost…