Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Basel-Stadt convicted XY. by summary penalty order dated 4 February 2015 for multiple fraud, multiple forgery of documents, and multiple forgery of identity documents. The summary penalty order was sent by registered mail to "X.", but was returned to the Public Prosecutor's Office on 17 February 2015. On 1 October 2015, a copy of the summary penalty order was served on the legal representative of Y., who had since joined the proceedings.
Y. filed an objection to the summary penalty order on 14 October 2015, as she had not received the summary penalty order or a notice to collect it. She claimed that the summary penalty order had been incorrectly addressed to her maiden name "X.", while her mailbox had been in her married name "Y." since her marriage in 2007. Alternatively, she requested the restoration of the time limit for objection.
The Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the request for restoration, which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Y. then filed a criminal law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the question of the validity of the objection of 14 October 2015 is to be assessed by the court of first instance, not by the Public Prosecutor's Office. The objection would be invalid in particular if it was filed late.
Time limits are triggered by a notification or an event and begin to run on the following day. For registered mail, there is a rebuttable presumption that the notice was properly served. However, this presumption can…