Facts
In the case of X. against the Central Prosecution Office of the Canton of Vaud (criminal complaint), X. was sentenced by order of the Prosecution Office of Lausanne of March 28, 2017, for breach of trust, to a pecuniary penalty of 150 daily installments at 30 francs per day with a two-year probationary period and to a fine of 900 francs. By order of May 10, 2017, the President of the District Court of Lausanne declared the opposition filed by X. against the penalty order to be inadmissible, established that the penalty order is enforceable, and referred the file to the Prosecution Office of the District of Lausanne for decision on the request for restoration of the time limit. By judgment of May 30, 2017, the Criminal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Vaud dismissed the appeal of X. and confirmed the order of May 10, 2017. X. filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Court and requested that her opposition be declared admissible, that the penalty order be declared unenforceable, and that the case be returned to the Public Prosecutor's Office. Alternatively, she requested the annulment of the judgment of May 30, 2017, and the return of the case to the Police Court or the previous instance for retrial. She further requested the granting of suspensive effect. By ordinance of August 4, 2017, the President of the Criminal Senate dismissed the requests for annulment.
Considerations
The respondent considers that the notification of the penalty order is not valid because it was made to her chosen lawyer, although she had indicated in the power of attorney that she did not choose to reside with this lawyer. Art. 87 para. 3 CrimPC is not mandatory.
According to Art. 87 para. 1, 3 and 4 CrimPC, any communication must be addressed to the residence, habitual residence, or seat of the recipient (para. 1). Parties and their lawyers who have their residence, habitual residence, or seat abroad are required to designate a notification residence in Switzerland, as international instruments exclude direct notification (para. 2). If the parties have legal counsel, communications are effectively addressed to them (para. 3). If a party must appear in person before the court or perform an act of procedure themselves, the communication is addressed to them. In such a case, a copy is sent to their legal counsel (para. 4).
Jurisprudence has clarified that Art. 87 para. 1 CrimPC does not exclude the party from informing the criminal authorities of a notification address other than the one indicated in this provision. If they do so, they have the right for the notifications to be made to the address indicated (ATF 139 IV 228 E. 1.1 and 1.2 p. 229). However, the Federal Court has reserved the case where the notification to the indicated address would be substantially more complicated than that to one of the places mentioned in Art. 87 para. 1 CrimPC (ATF 139 IV 228 E. 1.2 p. 231).
In the present case, the question arises whether a party can inform the criminal authorities that they are represented by legal counsel (Art. 127 para. 1…