Facts
On June 26, 2013, the Directorate of Security of the canton of Uri condemned X. to a fine of 400 Swiss francs and procedural costs of 150 Swiss francs for an offense against the road traffic law. The judgment was notified to X. on July 9, 2013. The legal representative of X., based in Germany, filed an opposition to the judgment on July 12 and 15, 2013, by email to the Directorate of Security. The Directorate of Security transmitted the opposition to the Public Prosecutor's Office of the canton of Uri on July 30, 2013. The Public Prosecutor's Office decided not to enter into the opposition on August 27, 2013.
The Cantonal Court of the canton of Uri rejected X.'s complaint against the Public Prosecutor's Office's decision not to enter into the opposition on December 16, 2013. X. filed a criminal appeal and requested the annulment of the contested decision and the obligation for the Public Prosecutor's Office to enter into the opposition. The Federal Court was seized of the case.
Considerations
The procedure before the competent penal authorities in matters of contraventions is governed by analogy by the provisions on the penal order (art. 357 para. 2 CrimPC). The cantons may not provide for procedural provisions that are contrary to or complementary to these. The opposition to a penal order pronounced by the competent penal authority in matters of contraventions must be addressed to this authority (art. 354 para. 1 CrimPC).
The cantonal law provision that allows attacking the penal decisions of the competent penal authority in matters of contraventions before the Public Prosecutor's Office is contrary to federal law. The Public Prosecutor's Office, to which the competent penal authority in matters of contraventions transmits an opposition, is not competent to rule on its validity. Only the court of first instance is competent to rule on the validity of the opposition (art. 356 para. 2 CrimPC).
The procedure before the competent penal authorities in matters of…