Facts
On 31 August 2012, it was determined that the motorway vignette affixed to the windshield of X.'s passenger car was a photocopy. The Office of the Attorney General subsequently convicted X. by summary penal order dated 12 November 2012 of forgery of official value stamps to a suspended fine and a monetary penalty. X. initially filed an objection to the summary penal order, but later withdrew it, although continuing to deny having copied and affixed the motorway vignette.
On 25 July 2014, X. applied to the Office of the Attorney General for a revision of the summary penal order of 12 November 2012. The Office of the Attorney General forwarded the request to the Federal Supreme Court on 15 August 2014.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines its jurisdiction and the further admissibility requirements ex officio and with free cognition. It finds that the jurisdiction for the handling of requests for revision against summary penal orders of the Office of the Attorney General is not expressly regulated by law.
Applying the case law on legal gaps, the Federal Supreme Court concludes that this is a gap to be filled, as the legislator has not regulated the jurisdiction for the revision of summary penal orders of the Office of…