Facts
The complainant [A.] was penalized by penal order of 30 October 2020 for violating the reporting obligation for incoming persons pursuant to Art. 83 para. 1 lit. k of the Epidemics Act (EpidA) in conjunction with Art. 5 of the Ordinance on Measures to Combat the Coronavirus (Covid-19) in the Field of International Passenger Traffic. The complainant lodged several objections against this penal order, inter alia through her husband, through an inadmissible legal representation, and by e-mail without a qualified electronic signature. The public prosecutor's office declared these objections invalid and the lower court confirmed this decision.
The complainant requests, in substance, that the cantonal court's ruling be set aside and that it be established that a valid objection against the penal order exists. She claims that she had initiated valid objections in three different ways on one day.
Considerations
The Federal Court examines whether the lower courts were correct in assuming that no valid objection against the penal order exists. It finds that the objection lodged by the complainant by e-mail without a qualified electronic signature is invalid and has no legal effect. Similarly, the objection lodged by the complainant's husband on her behalf is also invalid, as he was not authorized to represent the complainant.
The Federal Court also points out that the complainant did not comply with the time limit for lodging an objection, as the objection she had handed over to the Thai postal service only arrived in Switzerland after the deadline had expired. The handing over of the objection to the Thai postal service had no effect on the deadline.
The Federal Court concludes that the lower courts were correct in assuming that no valid objection against the penal order exists. It also points out…