Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 73
March 2005
Rieg v. Austria - 63207/00
Judgment 24.3.2005 [Section I]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Registered car owner fined for having failed to disclose the exact address of the person who had been speeding with her car: no violation
Facts:The car of which the applicant was the registered owner was caught by a radar-trap exceeding the speed limit. The District Administrative Authority ordered the applicant to disclose within two weeks the full name and address of the person who had been driving her car at the time. The applicant provided the driver’s first and family name in full and indicated that he was living in Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Administrative Authority then issued a provisional penal order in which it sentenced the applicant to pay a fine. It eventually dismissed her objection and issued a penal order confirming its previous decision on the basis that she had failed to give complete information. The applicant appealed to the Independent Administrative Panel, submitting that she had replied to the Administrative Authority’s order but had been unable to find out the driver’s exact address. Moreover, the obligation imposed on her to disclose details of the driver of her car violated the presumption of innocence and her right not to incriminate herself. Her appeal was dismissed and the Constitutional Court eventually declined to deal with her complaint. The applicant was never prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit.
Law: The Court noted that the application raised the same issue as Weh v. Austria (no. 38544/97, 8 April 2004). The heart of the applicant’s complaint was that her right to remain silent and not to incriminate herself had been violated, in that she had been punished for having refused to give information which might have incriminated her in the context of criminal proceedings for speeding. However, at no time were proceedings for speeding conducted against her. Without a sufficiently concrete link with such proceedings, the imposition of a fine to obtain information about the driver of the applicant’s car did not raise an issue concerning the applicant’s right to remain silent and her privilege against self-incrimination. The present case could not therefore be distinguished from the Weh case in which the Court had found nothing to show that the applicant had been “substantially affected” so as to consider him being “charged” with the offence of speeding within the autonomous meaning of Article 6 § 1. It was merely in his capacity as the registered car owner that he had been required to state a simple fact (the identity of the driver of his car) which had not been incriminating in itself.
Conclusion: no violation (5 votes to 2).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy