Jurisdiction to rule in case of conflict between the ordinary jurisdiction and that of minors in the same canton

Facts

Since 17 June 2016, the President of the Juvenile Court of Vaud has been conducting an investigation against A., born on 24 October 1998, for various offences. On 28 June 2018, the Central Public Prosecutor's Office of the canton of Vaud referred A. to the Juvenile Court for trial.

On 9 May 2018, the Vaud Public Prosecutor's Office opened an investigation following a robbery committed that same day in a post office. On 11 May 2018, the Vaud Public Prosecutor's Office also opened a criminal investigation due to a robbery committed in a grocery store. These two cases were transferred on 14 May 2018 to the Strada section of the Vaud Public Prosecutor's Office.

On 15 August 2018, A.'s lawyer requested the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutor's Office in case PE1 in favor of the juvenile jurisdiction with regard to the PM1 procedure. On 20 August 2018, the Public Prosecutor's Office refused to separate the case of the accused A. from case PE1 in favor of the juvenile jurisdiction.

Considerations

The Federal Tribunal upheld A.'s appeal, annulled the contested judgment and remanded the case to the Criminal Appeals Chamber to transmit the appeal filed by the appellant to the competent authority, namely the Attorney General of the canton of Vaud, so that he could rule on the conflict of jurisdiction between the ordinary jurisdiction and the juvenile jurisdiction.

Indeed, according to the case law, the rules relating to the jurisdiction and conduct of the contestation procedure also apply in the event of a conflict of…