Facts
The appellant [X.] drove his car on the A3 motorway towards Zurich on November 26, 2008. In Eiken, his vehicle came to a standstill on the lane due to lack of fuel in the area of a construction site. A hard shoulder was not available, as it had been suspended due to the construction site.
The Laufenburg district office found [X.] guilty of driving a vehicle that was not roadworthy with a penalty order of January 19, 2009, and fined him CHF 300.--. [X.] appealed against this penalty order.
With a judgment of the Laufenburg District Court of May 7, 2009, [X.] was acquitted. An appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Aargau was upheld by the Aargau Cantonal Court with a judgment of November 26, 2009. It found [X.] guilty of driving a vehicle that was not roadworthy and imposed a fine of CHF 300.--.
[X.] filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court and requested to be acquitted of guilt and penalty.
Considerations
The appellant complains of a violation of federal law (Art. 93 para. 2 sec. 1 RTA, Art. 29 RTA, and Art. 57 sec. 1 of the Road Traffic Regulations of November 13, 1962 [TRegO; SR 741.11]) as well as the principle of "nulla poena sine lege". The court below had interpreted the concept of roadworthiness in violation of federal law, as it had denied the existence of roadworthiness within the meaning of Art. 29 RTA, citing the lack of fuel.
The court below states that the concept of roadworthiness is to be understood not in a narrow, technical sense, but in a broader sense that also includes traffic safety. The maintenance of a vehicle includes ensuring that the vehicle is always sufficiently filled up with fuel. If the fuel is not sufficient to cover the intended route, the vehicle is not in a condition that complies with the regulations within the meaning of Art. 57 sec. 1 TRegO.
The Federal Supreme Court decides that the concept of a roadworthy…