Facts
On August 30, 2013, X. was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The Public Prosecutor's Office of Innerschwyz convicted him by penal order dated May 22, 2014 of negligent driving while unfit to drive in accordance with Art. 91 para. 2 aSVG to a suspended fine and a penalty. Since the registered penal order could not be served on May 23, 2014, it was deposited for collection at the post office. X. did not collect it. On June 13, 2014, the Public Prosecutor's Office sent the penal order again by registered mail with the note that it had been returned "not collected". X. filed an objection on June 14, 2014. The District Court of Schwyz and the Cantonal Court of Schwyz decided that the objection was late and the penal order had become legally binding.
X. filed a complaint in criminal matters, requesting that the cantonal court's decision be overturned and the proceedings be remanded to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Innerschwyz for substantive consideration of the dispute.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that for the assumption of the service fiction under Art. 85 para. 4 lit. a CrimPC, it is required that the recipient can recognize the authority as the sender with whose consignment he must reckon. Since a party's procedural obligation is limited to official acts of the authority with which it is in a procedural legal relationship, the sender must be clearly identifiable.
I…