Facts
The case concerns an accused person who is a Brazilian national residing in Switzerland. He was reported by the border guard for entry without a valid travel document and visa. The public prosecutor's office then issued a summary penalty order against him. The accused chose a domicile for service with the public prosecutor's office on a form, instead of providing a contact person in Switzerland. The public prosecutor's office then sent an informational copy of the summary penalty order by registered mail to the accused's address in Brazil. The accused later raised objections to the summary penalty order and its service. The President of the Criminal Court found the summary penalty order to be null and void and instructed the public prosecutor's office to issue a new summary penalty order and serve it on the accused through mutual legal assistance.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirms the decisions of the lower courts. It states that criminal convictions against parties with a domicile abroad must in principle be formally served through international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. An exception to this requirement exists only if there is an international agreement between Switzerland and the foreign state concerned that allows for simplified direct service of criminal convictions by post. No such agreement exists between Switzerland and Brazil. The Federal Supreme Court also sees no possibility to serve the summary penalty order without mutual legal assistance based on domestic criminal procedure law. The "domicile of choice" with the public prosecutor's office chosen by the accused does not meet the requirements for service triggering the time limit for appeal. The form on…