CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 octobre 2004

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom: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 68 October 2004 Falk v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 66273/01 Decision 19.10.2004 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Imposition of a fine to a registered car owner, though he had not been the actual driver at the time of the offence: inadmissible An administrative fine was imposed on the applicant for a traffic offence involving a car registered in his name. The applicant filed an appeal with the prosecutor providing the name and address of the person who had been driving his car at the time of the offence. The appeal was rejected in accordance with Article 5 of the Act on the Administrative Enforcement of Respect for Traffic Regulations, which stipulated that the registered owner of a vehicle remained liable for the fine when the identity of a driver could not be established at the time of the offence. The Act contained a number of exceptions to the strict liability rule, for example when a registered car owner demonstrated that the vehicle had been used by another person against his/her will. The applicant’s cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, complaining that the strict liability approach in the above-mentioned Act was incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention was rejected. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 2: Whilst presumptions of fact or law are not prohibited in principle, they must be reasonably proportionate to the aim pursued by the State. In the present case, the aim of the impugned strict liability rule in the Traffic Regulations Act was to secure effective road safety and ensure that offences committed by a driver whose identity could not be established would not go unpunished. The principle of proportionality had thus been observed. Moreover, the person fined under the Act could challenge the fine before the courts and exercise his/her rights of defence. In such circumstances, Article 5 of the Act – which obliged a registered car owner to assume responsibility for the decision of allowing another person to use his or her car – was not incompatible with Article 6 § 2: 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