Facts
X., an Austrian national domiciled in Austria, was convicted on November 11, 2003 by a conviction order of the Investigating Judge of the District of East Vaud for drunk driving. On March 10, 2004, X. requested a revision of this order, citing as a new fact that he had agreed with two colleagues to leave his car in the restaurant parking lot and that the return would be ensured by one of them, but that the latter had left the premises for an unexplained reason.
By judgment of March 24, 2004, the Criminal Revision Commission of the Vaud Cantonal Court rejected the request for revision. X. then filed a public law appeal and a nullity appeal to the Federal Tribunal against this judgment.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal rejected the appeals. It considered that the request for revision was abusive, as X. knew the facts he was invoking at the time he received the conviction order and should therefore have asserted them by filing an opposition to initiate ordinary proceedings, rather than requesting a revision.
The Federal Tribunal recalled that the conviction order is a simplified procedure that requires the accused to take a position. If he does not file an opposition within the prescribed time limit, he is deemed to have acquiesced to the…