CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 avril 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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 63 April 2004 Weh v. Austria - 38544/97 Judgment 8.4.2004 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Imposition of a fine to a registered car owner who refused to disclose the name of the person who had driven his car: no violation Facts : The applicant, who was the registered owner of a car that had exceeded the speed limit, was served with an anonymous order by the District Authority. As the sum in the order was not paid, the District Authority opened criminal proceedings against unknown offenders and ordered the applicant to disclose who had been driving the car. The applicant responded with imprecise information, as a result of which he was sentenced to pay a fine under the relevant provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. His successive appeals, including one to the Constitutional Court, were dismissed. The courts considered, inter alia , that the provision in the Motor Vehicles Act whereby a registered car owner was under the obligation to disclose the name and address of the driver was one of constitutional rank. The applicant was never prosecuted or sentenced for having committed a traffic offence. He complained to the Court that the obligation to disclose the name of the driver had breached his right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination. Law : Article 6 § 1 – The applicant had been punished under the Motor Vehicles Act for failure to give accurate information, not for having committed a traffic offence. The criminal proceedings for speeding were conducted against unknown offenders and it could not be maintained that such proceedings were anticipated against the applicant, against whom the authorities did not have any element of suspicion. Establishing such a link would be remote and hypothetical. In the absence of a concrete link with criminal proceedings, the use of compulsion to obtain information from the applicant did not raise any issue with his right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination under Article 6. Conclusion : no violation (4 votes to 3).   © 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