Federal Supreme Court, 17.08.2026, 7B_1304/2024
Facts
On June 22, 2021, during a police check, an officer noted that the left low-beam headlight of the vehicle driven by A.________ was defective. (Fact B)
Following a summary penalty order from the Contraventions Service (SDC), A.________ was fined 200 CHF by the Geneva Police Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (RTA). (Fact A)
Upon appeal by A.________, the Criminal Appeals and Review Chamber of the Geneva Court of Justice upheld the conviction in a judgment dated February 28, 2024.
In particular, it rejected the argument that the defect had occurred while driving, deeming it implausible that the driver would not have noticed it. (Fact B, consid. 4.3)
A.________ (hereinafter: the appellant) has filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking an acquittal.
He primarily alleges an arbitrary establishment of the facts and a violation of the presumption of innocence. (Fact C)
Law
Any person who drives a vehicle that they know, or should know by exercising the attention required by the circumstances, does not meet legal requirements commits an offense punishable by a fine (Art. 93 para. 2 let. a RTA).
This is an abstract endangerment offense. (consid. 4.2.1)
Vehicles may only be driven if they are in perfect working order (Art. 29 para. 1 Road Traffic Act).
However, if minor defects occur while on the road, the driver may continue the journey while taking the necessary precautions, provided that repairs are carried out without delay (Art. 57 para. 3 Ordinance on Road Traffic Rules).
This provision may constitute a justification that excludes the offense provided for in Art. 93 para. 2 Road Traffic Act. (recital 4.2.1, 4.4.3)
The Federal Supreme Court is bound by the facts established by the lower court, unless they are manifestly inaccurate, i.e., arbitrary (Art. 97 para. 1 and 105 para. 1 Federal Supreme Court Act).
Arbitrariness exists when the authority assesses evidence in an unsustainable manner or draws indefensible conclusions. (recital 4.2.2)
When the appellate court rules on a minor offense, its power to review the facts is limited to arbitrariness (Art. 398 para. 4 Criminal Procedure Code).
The Federal Supreme Court then freely reviews whether the appellate court correctly applied this limited scope of review, specifically whether it wrongly admitted or denied that the initial judgment was arbitrary. (consid. 4.2.2)
Application to the case at hand
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the reasoning of the cantonal court is arbitrary in several respects. (consid. 4.4)
First, the cantonal court wrongly refused to consider the appellant's claim that the headlights were working when his stepdaughter returned the vehicle to him earlier that day.
It dismissed this element as a "new fact" inadmissible on appeal, even though it had already been raised by the appellant in his objection to the penal order.
This element was, however, relevant to assessing whether the appellant had exercised the required level of care. (consid. 4.4.1)
Second, the cantonal court deemed it implausible that the appellant had not noticed the malfunction while driving, on the grounds that a police officer driving in the opposite direction had noticed it.
The Federal Supreme Court considers this reasoning to be pure speculation.
Since the events took place on the evening of June 22nd, while it was still daylight, the loss of a single headlight was not necessarily noticeable to the driver.
The fact that an officer noticed it from the front does not lead to the conclusion that the driver should have been aware of it.
By dismissing the theory that the breakdown occurred while driving on this basis, the cantonal court acted arbitrarily. (consid. 4.4.2)
Third, the cantonal court ruled out the justification under Art. 57 para. 3 of the Ordinance on Road Traffic Rules (OCR) on the grounds that the appellant was not driving to a garage.
This reasoning is flawed, as this provision applies precisely when a breakdown occurs "en route."
The court should have examined whether the defect was "minor" and whether the conditions of this provision were met, which it failed to do. (consideration 4.4.3)
In conclusion, the facts were established in an arbitrary and incomplete manner, failing to provide a basis for a conviction for violating Art. 93 para. 2 of the Road Traffic Act (LCR). (consideration 4.5)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court allows the appeal. (Ruling 1)
It sets aside the judgment of the Criminal Appeals and Review Chamber and remands the case for a new decision.
The cantonal authority must, in particular, supplement the statement of facts and re-examine whether the elements of the offense are met, including the potential application of the justification under Art. 57 para. 3 OCR. (Ruling 1, consideration 4.5)
No court costs are charged and no legal fees are awarded, as the appellant was not represented by a lawyer. (Rulings 2 and 3)