CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 décembre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 81 December 2005 Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.) - 73661/01 Decision 13.12.2005 [Section II] Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 Right not to be tried or punished twice Sufficiently close connection between the applicant’s conviction of traffic offences and the withdrawal of his driving licence for 18 months: inadmissible Facts : In November 1998 the applicant was apprehended by the police inter alia on suspicion of aggravated drunken driving and driving without a driving licence. In December 1998 he obtained a licence. In May 1999 a county administrative board informed him that it was considering whether to withdraw his licence in accordance with the Driving Licence Act on the ground of his suspected offences in November 1998. In June 1999 a district court convicted the applicant of the aforementioned offences and imposed on him a suspended sentence together with 50 hours’ community service. In July 1999 the county administrative board notified the applicant that, in light of the court judgment which had gained legal force, it was intending to take a definite decision on the withdrawal of his driving licence, and invited him to submit comments. In August 1999 the board withdrew his licence for 18 months, referring to his conviction. The applicant appealed, arguing inter alia that the withdrawal constituted double jeopardy. A county administrative court considered a number of decisions from the Convention institutions’ case-law and concluded that no clear precedent existed that could invalidate the Swedish system on the withdrawal of driving licences. Bearing in mind the damaging consequences a finding of incompatibility would have for road safety, the court found no reasons for setting aside the licence withdrawal. The applicant’s further appeals were dismissed by an administrative court of appeal and by the Supreme Administrative Court. Law : The aim of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is to prohibit the repetition of criminal proceedings that have been concluded by a final decision. A first issue to be determined was whether the proceedings relating to the withdrawal of the applicant’s driving licence could be considered as “criminal” for the purposes of this provision. This notion must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words “criminal charge” and “penalty” respectively in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. Although the relevant offences had occurred in November 1998, it was not until August 1999 that the County Administrative Board had withdrawn the applicant’s driving licence. Therefore, prevention and deterrence for the protection of the safety of road users could not have been the only purposes of the measure; retribution must also have been a major consideration. The withdrawal of the licence had been a direct and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s conviction. The Court therefore agreed with the conclusion reached by the Supreme Administrative Court that, although under Swedish law the withdrawal of a driving licence had traditionally been regarded as an administrative measure designed to protect road safety, the withdrawal on the ground of the criminal conviction, as in the present case, constituted a “criminal” matter for the purpose of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. Moreover, in the view of the Court, the mere severity of the measure – the suspension of a driving licence for 18 months – regardless of the context of the applicant’s criminal conviction, was so significant that it could ordinarily be viewed as a criminal sanction. However, the Court was unable to agree with the applicant that the decision to withdraw his driving licence amounted to new criminal proceedings being brought against him. While the different sanctions were imposed by two different authorities in different proceedings, there was nevertheless a sufficiently close connection between them, in substance and in time, to consider the withdrawal to be part of the sanctions under Swedish law for the offences of aggravated drunken driving and unlawful driving. The withdrawal therefore did not imply that the applicant was tried or punished again for an offence for which he had already been finally convicted. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © 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