CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 27 juin 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                            FIRST CHAMBER                      Application No. 16898/90                                W. M.                               against                               Austria                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                      (adopted on 27 June 1995)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 11-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 16-28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 16-17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3        B.    Relevant domestic law           (paras. 18-28). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 29-59) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8        A.    Complaint declared admissible           (para. 29). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8        B.    Points at issue           (para. 30). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8        C.    As to the applicability of Article 6 of the Convention           (paras. 31-42). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8             a.    The existence of "criminal charge"                (paras. 31-35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8             b.    The reservation to Article 5 of the Convention                (paras. 36-42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9        D.    As to compliance with Article 6 para. 1 of the           Convention           (paras. 43-51). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10             a.    The administrative authorities                (paras. 43-45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10             b.    The scope of review of the decisions                of the administrative authorities                (paras. 46-51) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11             CONCLUSION           (para. 52). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12                  c.    The absence of a hearing before                     the Administrative Court                     (para. 53). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12                       CONCLUSION                     (para. 54). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12                  d.    The proceedings before the                     administrative authorities                     (para. 55). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12                       CONCLUSION                     (para. 56). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12        E.    Recapitulation           (paras. 57-59). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12   APPENDIX :      DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . 14   I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1953 and resident in Vienna.   He runs a taxi firm.   3.    The application is directed against Austria.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ambassador F. Cede, head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs.   4.    The case concerns administrative criminal proceedings and the scope of review by the Administrative Court.   The applicant invokes Article 6 of the Convention.     B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 14 May 1990 and registered on 19 July 1990.   6.    On 13 February 1992 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 13 October 1992. The applicant replied on 6 December 1992.   8.    On 18 October 1994 the Commission declared the application admissible.   9.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 27 October 1994 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.   No further submissions were made.   10.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   11.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:             Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS, President           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                G.B. REFFI                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                E. KONSTANTINOV                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN   12.   The text of this Report was adopted on 27 June 1995 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   13.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:        (i)   to establish the facts, and        (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.   14.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is appended hereto.   15.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   16.   Following a police report of 6 August 1987 that a tyre on one of the applicant's taxis had too low a tread, the applicant was fined AS 500 by the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion) on 20 September 1988 for failure to comply with his duties as the registered owner of a motor vehicle, with 30 hours' detention in default.   The offence was expressed as a contravention of Section 103 (1)(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Kraftfahrgesetz) 1967 in connection with Section 7 (1) of that Act and Section 4 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Implementation) Regulations (Kraftfahrzeuggesetz- Durchführungsverordnung).   17.   The applicant's appeal to the Vienna Provincial Governor (Landeshauptmann) was dismissed on 21 April 1989 and his further complaint to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) was dismissed on 13 December 1989.   B.    Relevant domestic law   The relevant administrative criminal law   18.   Section 103 (1)(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1967 provides that the registered owner of a vehicle is to ensure that the vehicle complies with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act 1967 and all Regulations flowing from it.   Section 7 (1) of the Act provides that vehicles must be fitted with appropriate tyres for the type of vehicle. The minimum tread for the vehicle at issue in the present case - 1.6 mm over the entire surface of the tyre - is provided for in Regulation 4 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Implementation) Regulations.   The maximum penalty in default is six weeks' imprisonment.   19.   The Motor Vehicles Act 1955, at Section 86, required the owner of a vehicle to keep the vehicle in a condition which complied with the regulations.   Section 7 of the 1955 Act provided that the wheels of motor vehicles had to be fitted with pneumatic tyres or tyres of the same elasticity, and Section 7 (3) provided that tyre regulations could be made to ensure traffic safety.   The regulations made under the 1955 Act - the Motor Vehicles Regulations (Kraftfahrverordnung 1955) required pneumatic or similar tyres to be used, but did not refer to any form or depth of tread.   Jurisdiction of the Constitutional and Administrative Courts   20.   According to Article 144 of the Austrian Federal Constitution (Bundesverfassungsgesetz) an appeal can be filed with the Constitutional Court in which an applicant can allege a violation of his constitutional rights.   He can also complain that his rights have been violated on account of an unlawful ordinance, an unconstitutional Act, or an unlawful international treaty.   21.   Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution provides as follows:   (German)        "Der Verfassungsgerichtshof kann die Behandlung einer Beschwerde      bis zur Verhandlung durch Beschluß ablehnen, wenn sie keine      hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg hat oder von der Entscheidung      die Klärung einer verfassungsrechtlichen Frage nicht zu erwarten      ist.   Die Ablehnung der Behandlung ist unzulässig, wenn es sich      um einen Fall handelt, der nach Art. 133 von der Zuständigkeit      des Verwaltungsgerichtshofes ausgeschlossen ist."   (Translation)        "The Constitutional Court may refuse to consider a case up to a      hearing by way of decision if it has no reasonable prospect of      success or it cannot be expected that the decision will shed      light on a problem of constitutional law.   A refusal to consider      is inadmissible if it concerns a case excluded from the      jurisdiction of the Administrative Court by Article 133."   22.   According to Article 130 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution the Administrative Court will review allegations of unlawfulness of an administrative decision.   According to Article 130 para. 2, "no unlawfulness exists where legislation does not establish a binding rule on an administrative authority's conduct, leaving the determination of such conduct to the authority itself, and the authority has made use of this discretion in the spirit of the law" ("Rechtswidrigkeit liegt nicht vor, soweit die Gesetzgebung von einer bindenden Regelung des Verhaltens der Verwaltungsbehörde absieht und die Bestimmung dieses Verhaltens der Behörde selbst überläßt, die Behörde aber von diesem freien Ermessen im Sinne des Gesetzes Gebrauch gemacht hat").   The Administrative Court is also competent to deal with complaints that the administrative authority has violated its duty to take a decision (Article 132).   23.   Section 41 of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungs- gerichtshofgesetz) provides, so far as relevant:   (German)        "(1)   Der Verwaltungsgerichtshof hat, soweit er nicht      Rechtswidrigkeit wegen Unzuständigkeit der belangten Behörde oder      wegen Verletzung von Verfahrensvorschriften gegeben findet (§ 42      Abs. 2 Z. 2 und 3) ..., den angefochtenen Bescheid auf Grund des      von der belangten Behörde angenommenen Sachverhaltes im Rahmen      der geltend gemachten Beschwerdepunkte ... zu überprüfen.   Ist      er der Ansicht, dass für die Entscheidung über die      Rechtswidrigkeit des Bescheides in einem der Beschwerdepunkte ...      Gründe maßgebend sein könnten, die einer Partei bisher nicht      bekanntgegeben wurden, so hat er die Parteien darüber zu hören      und, wenn nötig, eine Vertagung zu verfügen."   (Translation)        "(1)   In so far as the Administrative Court does not find      unlawfulness on account of a lack of jurisdiction of the      authority against which the appeal is directed or on account of      a violation of procedural provisions (Section 42 (2) (2) and (3),      ... the Court must examine the contested decision on the basis      of the facts as accepted by the authority against which the      appeal is directed within the framework of the alleged complaint      ...   If it is of the opinion that reasons would be relevant for      the decision on the unlawfulness of the contested decision ...      which were so far not known to a party, it must hear the parties      thereupon and, if necessary, adjourn the proceedings."   24.   Section 42 (1) of the Administrative Court Act states that, save as otherwise provided, decisions of the Administrative Court shall either dismiss a complaint as ill-founded or quash the contested decision.   Apart from amendments to that part of Section 42 (1) which enumerates those proceedings to which it does not apply (not relevant in the present case) Section 42 (1) has been in force since at least 1946.   25.   As regards the decisions of the Administrative Court, Section 42 (2) of the Administrative Court Act provides, so far as relevant:   (German)        "(2) Der angefochtene Bescheid ist aufzuheben      1.    wegen Rechtswidrigkeit seines Inhaltes,      2.    wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Unzuständigkeit           der belangten Behörde,      3.    wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Verletzung von           Verfahrensvorschriften, und zwar weil           a)    der Sachverhalt von der belangten Behörde                in einem wesentlichen Punkt aktenwidrig                angenommen wurde oder           b)    der Sachverhalt in einem wesentlichen                Punkt einer Ergänzung bedarf oder           c)    Verfahrensvorschriften außer acht gelassen                wurden, bei deren Einhaltung die belangte                Behörde zu einem anderen Bescheid hätte                kommen können."   (Translation)        "(2) The contested decision must be quashed      1.    on account of the unlawfulness of its content,      2.    on account of unlawfulness due to the lack of           jurisdiction of the authority against which the           appeal is directed,      3.    on account of unlawfulness due to a violation of           procedural provisions in particular because           a)    the authority against which the appeal is                directed has determined the facts on an                important point contrary to the case-file, or           b)    the facts require to be supplemented on an important                point, or           c)    procedural provisions have been disregarded                which, if taken into consideration by the authority                against which the appeal is directed, could have led                to a different decision of the authority."   Hearings before the Administrative Court   26.   Section 39 (1) of the Administrative Court Act provides that the Administrative Court is to hold a hearing after its preliminary investigation of the case where a complainant has requested a hearing within the time-limit.   Section 39 (2) provides as follows:   (German)        "Der Verwaltungsgerichtshof kann ungeachtet eines Parteiantrages      nach Abs. 1 Z. 1 von einer Verhandlung absehen, wenn        1.   das Verfahren einzustellen (§ 33) oder die Beschwerde      zurückzuweisen ist (§ 34);      2.   der angefochtene Bescheid wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge      Unzuständigkeit der belangten Behörde aufzuheben ist      (§ 42 Abs. 2 Z. 2);      3.   der angefochtene Bescheid wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge      Verletzung von Verfahrensvorschriften aufzuheben ist (§ 42 Abs.      2 Z. 3);      4.   der angefochtene Bescheid nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung      des Verwaltungsgerichtshofes wegen Rechtswidrigkeit seines      Inhaltes aufzuheben ist;      5.   weder die belangte Behörde noch etwaige Mitbeteiligte eine      Gegenschrift eingebracht haben und der angefochtene Bescheid      aufzuheben ist;      6.    die Schriftsätze der Parteien des verwaltungsgerichtlichen      Verfahrens und die dem Verwaltungsgerichtshof vorgelegten Akten      des Verwaltungsverfahrens erkennen lassen, daß die mündliche      Erörterung eine weitere Klärung der Rechtssache nicht erwarten      läßt."   (Translation)        "Notwithstanding a party's application, the Administrative Court      may decide not to hold a hearing when        1.   The proceedings are to be discontinued (Section 33) or the      complaint is to be rejected (Section 34);      2.   The contested decision is to be quashed for unlawfulness due      to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the authority challenged      (Section 42 (2) (2));      3.   The contested decision is to be quashed for failure to comply      with procedural provisions (Section 42 (2) (3));      4.   The contested decision is to be quashed in accordance with      the constant case-law of the Administrative Court for      unlawfulness as to its contents;      5.   Neither the authority challenged nor any third party has      submitted a reply and the contested decision is to be quashed;      6.   It is apparent from the written pleadings of the parties to      the proceedings before the Administrative Court and from the      files relating to the prior proceedings that an oral hearing is      not likely to contribute to clarifying the case."   27.   Section 39 (2) (1) to (2) (3) were in force in 1958.   Section 39 (2) (4) and (2) (5) were added in 1964 and Section 39 (2) (6) was added in 1982.   28.   Article 90 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution provides as follows:   (German)        "Die Verhandlungen in Zivil- und Strafrechtssachen vor dem      erkennenden Gericht sind mündlich und öffentlich.   Ausnahmen      bestimmt das Gesetz."   (Translation)        "Hearings in civil and criminal cases by the trial court shall      be oral and public.   Exceptions may be prescribed by law."   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaint declared admissible   29.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that the proceedings in which he was convicted of having too low a tread on the tyres of one of his taxis did not comply with Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   B.    Points at issue   30.   The issues to be determined are:   -     whether there has been a violation of the applicant's right to      a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of      the Convention,   -     whether the absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court      violated Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, and   _     whether the evidence before the administrative authorities was      sufficient to comply with Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   C.    As to the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention        a.    The existence of a "criminal charge"   31.   Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides, so far as relevant, as follows:        "In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him,      everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an      independent and impartial tribunal established by law."   32.   In the proceedings in the present case, the applicant was convicted of failing to have sufficient tread on one of his taxis.   The administrative offence (Verwaltungsübertretung) was contained in the Motor Vehicles Act 1967. The applicant was fined AS 500, to be replaced by 30 hours' detention in default.   33.   The applicant considers that the proceedings determined a criminal charge.   With reference to the case-law of the Convention organs, the Government do not contest the claim, but point to various features of this type of offence which, in their view, call for a differentiated approach to administrative criminal offences (Verwaltungsstrafsachen) when compared with ordinary, judicial criminal offences.   They note, for instance, that criminal records do not make reference to administrative convictions, that administrative criminal law is not directed against the commission of social wrong but serves the purpose of maintaining public order, and that the offences are of a minor and frequently purely formal character (non-registration for example).   34.   The Commission recalls that the European Court of Human Rights has applied the same test for the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) to regulatory offences (Ordnungswidrigkeiten) in Germany as to other types of proceedings (Eur. Court H.R., Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, p. 18, para. 50).   The Commission notes that administrative criminal proceedings in Austria are regulated by special legislative provisions which are separate from the ordinary criminal law.   The proceedings are, however, expressly referred to as administrative "criminal" proceedings, and the Commission finds that this gives an indication of their nature.   The Commission also notes that, although the fine in the present case was small, it carried with it the default penalty of 30 hours' detention.   The maximum period of detention in default was six weeks.   Moreover, the rule in question was directed towards all citizens in their capacity as road-users (cf. the above-mentioned Öztürk judgment, p. 20, para. 53).   35.   Taking into account the classification as "administrative criminal" of the offence in domestic law, the nature of the offence as failure to comply with a specific regulation, and the nature of the penalty, which included the possibility of imprisonment, the Commission finds that the proceedings at issue in the present case determined a "criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        b.    The reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention   36.   The Government submit that the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention prevents the Commission from entertaining this complaint.   This reservation provides as follows:        "The provisions of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention shall be      so applied that there shall be no interference with measures for      the deprivation of liberty prescribed in the laws on      administrative procedure, BGBl. No. 172/1950, subject to review      by the Administrative Court or the Constitutional Court as      provided for in the Austrian Federal Constitution."   37.   The applicant considers that the Motor Vehicles Act under which he was convicted is not the same as that in force when the reservation was entered, and that Section 103 (1) of the new Act is not the same as the old Section 86, in particular as the earlier provision related to the duties of the "owner" of the vehicle to ensure conformity with the regulations, whereas the new provision refers to the "registered owner".   Further, he points to fact that the regulations in force in 1958 did not refer to the tread a tyre was required to have, and certainly made no mention of the 1.6 mm required by the 1967 regulations.   The Government submit that the provision under which the applicant was convicted was in force at the time the reservation was made, and consider that the reservation must be taken to apply not merely to actual measures of detention under Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention, but also to the proceedings which may lead to such detention.   They refer to Commission case-law to this effect (eg. No. 8998/80, Dec. 3.3.83, D.R. 32, p. 150).   38.   The Commission recalls that the European Court of Human Rights has recently had occasion to affirm the validity of the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) (Eur. Court H.R., Chorherr judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266, p. 35, para. 21).   In particular, the Court emphasised that the laws referred to in the reservation "lay down rules for the punishment of offences, setting out the punishable acts, the penalties incurred and the procedure to be followed" (p. 34, para. 18).   The Court continued that "the provisions to which the reservation applied in [that] case were all in force on 3 September 1958 ..." (ibid).   39.   In 1958, when the reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) was entered, Austrian administrative law included provisions which required the owner of the vehicle to ensure conformity with regulations on, effectively, construction and use of motor vehicles.   The regulations which then existed did not, however, include the provision concerning the tread on tyres which the applicant was found to have contravened. The Motor Vehicles Act is not, moreover, one of the laws referred to in the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention (cf. No. 16713/90, Pramstaller v. Austria, Comm. Report 19.5.94, pending before the European Court of Human Rights).   40.   It is true that in the case of Fischer (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312) the European Court of Human Rights, in finding that the Austrian reservation to Article 6 (Art. 6) did not apply in that case, referred to the fact that a provision of procedural law had not been in force at the time of the reservation, rather that finding that the statute was not referred to in the reservation. However, the Commission considers that even an extensive interpretation of Article 64 (Art. 64) of the Convention cannot, in the light of the criteria in the case of Chorherr (see para. 38 above), justify the conclusion that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1955 were referred to in the reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5).   41.   Finally in this respect, the Commission notes that the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention in terms refers to Article 5 (Art. 5) and not to Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   42.   The Commission finds that that reservation cannot be said to apply in the present case.   Accordingly, the reservation does not prevent the Commission from examining the complaint under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   D.    As to compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention        a.    The administrative authorities   43.   The applicant considers that the introduction of the Independent Administrative Tribunals is an indication that the Government have accepted that the system in force in his case did not comply with the Convention.   The Government do not submit that the administrative authorities which heard the applicant's case at first and second instance were composed of independent judges, but they point to the procedural rules which apply before the administrative authorities.   44.   The Commission finds that the administrative authorities which decided the applicant's case at first and second instance were not "independent and impartial tribunals" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Obermeier judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, p. 22, para. 70; Zumtobel judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, para. 29).   45.   The decisions of the administrative authorities may give rise to appeals to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) and the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof), but the proceedings for the consideration of such appeals will be consistent with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) only if conducted before "judicial bodies that have full jurisdiction" (cf. No. 15523/89, Schmautzer v. Austria, Comm. Report 19.5.94, pending before the European Court of Human Rights, with reference to the above-mentioned Zumtobel judgment, para. 29).        b.    The scope of review of the decisions of the administrative           authorities   46.   The Commission must therefore examine the scope of review offered by the Austrian judicial authorities in this determination of a criminal charge in order to establish whether the applicant was able to take his case before a tribunal that did offer the guarantees of Article 6 (Art. 6) (above-mentioned Öztürk judgment, p. 22, para. 56).   47.   The applicant considers that where Article 6 (Art. 6) is applicable, the Convention requires a court which can determine all aspects of the case.   48.   The Government consider that the applicant's real complaint relates to matters concerning the proceedings before the administrative authorities, rather than the question whether his case was determined by an independent and impartial tribunal.   They also consider that in minor cases such as the present one, it is permissible for an independent tribunal - they underline that the independence and impartiality of the Administrative and Constitutional Courts are not in doubt - to review the facts as established by the administrative authorities.   49.    The Commission first finds that the Constitutional Court did not satisfy the requirement of "full jurisdiction".   It was able to inquire into the contested proceedings only from the point of view of their conformity with the Constitution (see also the above-mentioned Zumtobel judgment, para. 30).   The Government do not contend that the Constitutional Court has sufficient powers to examine all relevant facts.   50.   The Convention organs have considered the scope of review by the Administrative and Constitutional Courts of the decisions of Austrian administrative authorities several times (see, for example, the above- mentioned Obermeier and Zumtobel judgments, with further references). All previous cases determined by the Court, however, concerned determinations of civil rights or obligations.   The Commission recalls that criminal charges, even indisputably minor ones, must be determined by a court which complies with Article 6 (Art. 6), even though it is not inconsistent with the Convention for prosecution and punishment of minor offences to be conferred in the first place on administrative authorities (see the above-mentioned Öztürk judgment, p. 21, para. 56).   51.   The Commission finds that whilst in civil matters a somewhat limited review of the decisions of administrative authorities may, in certain circumstances, satisfy the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention (see, for example, the above-mentioned Zumtobel judgment, and Eur. Court H.R., Schuler-Zgraggen judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19, para. 58), criminal cases may require a different approach.    In particular, they involve rules directed towards all citizens in their capacity - in the present case as in the Öztürk case - as road-users, which prescribe conduct of a certain kind and create sanctions for non-compliance.   Whilst the Commission well appreciates the advantages for the prosecution and the defence in dealing with minor criminal offences as expeditiously as possible, it finds that where a defendant desires a court to determine a criminal charge against him, there is no room for limitation on the scope of review required of the decisions of administrative authorities.   Accordingly, the applicant in the present case, who expressed a clear wish to challenge the administrative decisions by putting his case to the Administrative Court, was entitled to, but did not have the benefit of, a court which could consider all the facts of the case.        CONCLUSION   52.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of the applicant's right to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        c.    The absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court   53.   In the light of its above finding that the applicant was denied his right to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, the Commission finds that no separate issue arises in connection with the absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court.        CONCLUSION   54.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that the absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court raises no separate issue under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        d.    The proceedings before the administrative authorities   55.   In the light of its above finding that the applicant was denied his right to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)of the Convention, the Commission finds that no separate issue arises in connection with the question of the way evidence was dealt with by the administrative authorities (cf., Palaoro v. Austria, Comm. Report 19.5.94, pending before the European Court of Human Rights).        CONCLUSION   56.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that the way in which the administrative authorities considered the evidence in the case raises no separate issues under Article 6   (Art. 6-1)of the Convention.   E.    Recapitulation   57.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of the applicant's right to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (para. 52).   58.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that the absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court raises no separate issue under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (para. 54).   59.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that the way in which the administrative authorities considered the evidence in the case raises no separate issues under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention (para. 56).   Secretary to the First Chamber          President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                          (C.L. ROZAKIS)