Facts

Parties and procedural history:

The appellant, represented by Attorney Hermann Lei, contests the judgment of the Lucerne Cantonal Court of 6 September 2023 (4M 23 3), which found him guilty on several counts and sentenced him to a suspended fine and fines. The respondent is the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Canton of Lucerne. The Federal Supreme Court heard the appeal on 4 December 2025.

Facts and allegations:

1. Allegation of failure to wear a face mask and disregard of safety orders (28 December 2020):

The appellant was accused of smoking a cigarillo on the platform of Lucerne railway station on 28 December 2020 and failing to desist despite repeated requests by SBB Transport Police officers. He was also alleged to have failed to wear a face mask, despite the mandatory mask-wearing requirement in force under the Covid-19 Ordinance on Special Situation. The public prosecutor found him guilty of failure to wear a hygiene mask under Art. 3b para. 1 Covid-19 Ordinance on Special Situation in conjunction with Art. 83 para. 1 lit. j EpidA and of disregarding orders issued by security personnel under Art. 9 para. 1 PTSA, and sentenced him to a fine of CHF 200.--.

2. Allegations relating to unauthorised demonstrations (19 July 2021, 11 September 2021, 13 October 2021)

The appellant was accused of participating in and organising several unauthorised rallies against Covid-19 measures:

  • 19 July 2021: As co-organiser and participant, he allegedly directed a demonstration march of up to 500 people onto the carriageway, bringing traffic to a complete standstill for around 55 minutes. The public prosecutor charged him with coercion under Art. 181 SCC, violation of Art. 23 of the Regulations on Public Grounds/LU and obstruction of police duties under § 22 LU Police Act. He was sentenced to a fine of 80 daily rates of CHF 80.-- and a fine of CHF 1,900.--.
  • 11 September 2021: He allegedly again took part in an unauthorised demonstration and directed the march onto the carriageway, blocking traffic. The public prosecutor charged him with coercion under Art. 181 SCC.
  • 13 October 2021: He allegedly took part in an unauthorised rally near the Verkehrshaus Lucerne, harassed police officers by blowing cigar smoke at them and unlawfully interfered with their official duties. He also deliberately blocked the front wheel of a police vehicle to prevent it from driving off. The public prosecutor charged him with obstruction of police duties under § 22 LU Police Act and hindrance of an official act under Art. 286 SCC.

Procedural history:

The appellant filed an objection against the penal orders. The public prosecutor maintained the charges and referred the case to the Lucerne District Court, which joined the two proceedings. On 28 November 2022, the District Court sentenced him to a suspended custodial sentence of 100 daily rates of CHF 120.-- and a fine of CHF 400.--. On appeal, the Lucerne Cantonal Court upheld the first-instance conviction on the merits but reduced the sentence to 100 daily rates of CHF 70.-- and the fine to CHF 375.-- on 6 September 2023.

The appellant requests in his criminal appeal that the convictions and sentences be quashed and that he be acquitted. Alternatively, he requests that the case be remitted to the lower court for determination of the legally relevant facts.

Considerations

1. Admissibility of the appeal:

The Federal Supreme Court first examines the admissibility of the appeal. Submissions filed after the expiry of the appeal period or which qualify as novae will not be considered (Art. 99 para. 1 FSCA). Moreover, the grounds for appeal must be contained in the appeal itself and may not be limited to general references to the file or other legal submissions (Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA). The appellant has not complied with these requirements in all respects, in particular, he has failed to substantiate his objections adequately. To the extent that the appeal does not meet these requirements, the Federal Supreme Court will not enter into the matter.

2. Review of the findings of fact and assessment of evidence:

The Federal Supreme Court reviews the lower court’s findings of fact only under the aspect of arbitrariness (Art. 97 para. 1 FSCA). Arbitrariness exists if the lower court’s assessment of the evidence is manifestly untenable, i.e. if it proceeds from facts that are clearly inconsistent with the actual situation or based on an obvious error. The appellant has not demonstrated that the lower court acted in such an arbitrary manner. His criticism is limited to an appellate challenge to the assessment of the evidence without substantiating his objections to the lower court’s reasoning. His objections are therefore unfounded.

3. Legal assessment of the allegations:

a) Failure to wear a face mask and disregard of safety orders:

The appellant does not dispute that on 28 December 2020 he was not wearing a face mask and failed to comply with the orders of the security personnel. He claims that he was exempt from the mask-wearing requirement on health grounds and had submitted a corresponding medical certificate. However, the lower court found that the certificate issued by Dr med. [B.] was not sufficiently specific and did not reveal clear medical reasons for an exemption. Moreover, the appellant was aware that the certificate was not based on an adequate examination. The lower court was therefore correct to conclude that the appellant wilfully violated the mask-wearing requirement. The appeal is unfounded in this respect.

b) Participation in unauthorised demonstrations and coercion:

Th…