Federal Supreme Court, 09.17.2026, 6B_889/2025
Facts
By penal order dated May 27, 2025, the Vaud Public Prosecutor's Office convicted A. of various traffic and narcotics legislation offenses. The order, sent by registered mail, was returned marked "unclaimed" after the postal holding period expired on June 4, 2025. A copy was subsequently sent by ordinary mail. A. filed an objection late and requested a restoration of the time limit, citing the physical and psychological consequences of violence suffered at the hands of her former partner. The Public Prosecutor's Office rejected this request, a decision upheld by the Vaud Cantonal Court. A. appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (TF), asserting a medical impediment and a case of force majeure (considerations 1 to 4).
Law
According toart. 94 CrimPC, a party may obtain a restoration of a time limit when they have been prevented from observing it, have suffered significant and irreparable prejudice as a result, and have made the absence of any fault plausible. The duly reasoned request must be filed within 30 days of the cessation of the impediment, with the omitted act to be performed within that same period. Restoration remains exceptional and presupposes a clear absence of fault (consideration 3).
A non-culpable impediment may result from an objective impossibility, such as a case of force majeure, but also from a subjective impossibility linked to personal circumstances or an excusable error. Illness or an accident may justify restoration when the person concerned is unable to act themselves or to instruct a third party to do so. Conversely, simple negligence or a decision not to act is insufficient (consideration 3).
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court considers that the cantonal authority could not exclude the existence of a non-culpable impediment solely on the grounds that the medically documented injuries did not demonstrate an incapacity to act. The case file reveals that the appellant suffered severe violence on the night of June 3 to 4, 2025, followed by police intervention and hospitalization. These events occurred precisely at the expiration of the postal holding period (considerations 4 and 5.1).
Under these circumstances, the failure to collect the registered mail cannot be attributed to her as a fault. It could not reasonably be expected that she would immediately appoint a representative to collect the item. Once it had been returned to the sender, she was, in any case, no longer able to access the penal order via the post office (consideration 5.2).
The Federal Supreme Court notes, however, that several elements remain undetermined. In particular, it must be established whether the collection notice allowed for the identification of the judicial nature of the mail or its sender, as well as the date on which the appellant actually received the copy of the order sent on June 11, 2025. These circumstances are decisive in assessing whether, after her return from Spain on June 13, 2025, she could have understood that the objection period was still running until June 15, 2025, and acted in a timely manner by filing an unreasoned objection (consideration 5.3).
As the factual record is insufficient to determine the potential existence of fault after the cessation of the initial impediment, further investigation is required. The Federal Supreme Court therefore does not definitively rule on the question of the restoration of the time limit (consideration 5.3).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court allows the appeal, annuls the cantonal judgment, and remits the case to the previous authority for further investigation and a new decision regarding the restoration of the objection period. It does not rule on the merits of the criminal conviction. No court costs are charged (considerations 1, 5.3, and 6).