Facts
By a criminal order dated 29 May 2012, the Public Prosecutor of the district of La Côte convicted X. for a serious violation of road traffic regulations. X. filed an objection against this order, but it was declared inadmissible by the District Court of La Côte on the grounds that it was late. The Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Vaud dismissed X.'s appeal against this decision.
X. then filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Tribunal, concluding that the cantonal judgment should be annulled and the case remanded for a new procedure.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal upheld the appeal. It considered that the notification of the criminal order to X.'s place of residence was irregular, since X. had expressly indicated to the authorities a different notification address (Hotel A., in B.).
According to the Federal Tribunal, Art. 87 para. 1 CrimPC does not prevent a party from communicating to the authorities a notification address different from their domicile or usual residence. When the recipient indicates such an address, notifications must in principle be made there, unless the notification to that address would be significantly more complicated than to one of the places mentioned in Art. 87 para. 1 CrimPC.
In the present case, the notification of the criminal order to X.'s domicile was therefore irregular, since X. had clearly indicated another notification address. The time limit for filing…