Facts
The appellant, [A.] , was found guilty by penal order of 25 February 2019 of obstructing measures to determine fitness to drive and hindering an official act. The service of the penal order initially failed twice before it was served in person on 3 June 2019. The appellant lodged an objection to the penal order on 13 June 2019, which was rejected by the District Court of Horgen as belated. The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed an appeal against this decision. The appellant then applied for reinstatement of the time limit for the objection, which was rejected by the Public Prosecutor's Office. The appeal against this decision was again dismissed by the Higher Court.
The appellant now lodges another appeal in criminal matters and applies for the annulment of the ruling and decision of the Higher Court as well as the reinstatement of the time limit for the objection. She claims that due to a severe cancer diagnosis and the associated therapies, she was not able to take note of the penal order in time and lodge an objection.
Considerations
The Federal Court first examines whether the lower court has obviously incorrectly established the facts. The appellant claims that the lower court selectively ignored essential elements for credibly demonstrating the lack of fault. However, the Federal Court finds that the lower court took into account the medical certificates and that the appellant did not credibly demonstrate that she was not at fault for the default.
The Federal Court explains that the reinstatement of a time limit can only be granted in the event of clear faultlessness. Any fault on the part of a party, their representative, or auxiliary persons, no matter how minor, precludes reinstatement. The appellant has not credibly demonstrated that she was…