PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 63207/00) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Ms Gerda Rieg (“the applicant”), on 6 October 2000.

The applicant was represented by Mr M. Einsle, a lawyer practising in Bregenz. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Winkler, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The German Government did not make use of their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).

The applicant alleged, in particular, that her right to remain silent and not to incriminate herself had been breached in criminal proceedings against her.

The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

By a decision of 18 March 2004 the Court declared the application partly admissible.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Laupheim (Germany).

On 17 January 1997 at 18.45 p.m. the car of which the applicant is the registered owner was caught in Austria by a radar-trap exceeding the speed limit by 26 km/h.

On 12 March 1997 the Dornbirn District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) ordered the applicant pursuant to section 103 § 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Kraftfahrzeuggesetz) to disclose within two weeks the full name and address of the person who had been driving her car at the material time on 17 January 1997.

On 24 March 1997 the applicant replied that Mr J.S. [first and family name in full], living in Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina had been the driver.

On 17 April 1997 the Dornbirn District Administrative Authority issued a provisional penal order (Strafverfügung) in which it sentenced the applicant under sections 103 § 2 and 134 § 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act to pay a fine of 1,500 Austrian schillings (ATS) with two days' imprisonment in default.

The applicant filed an objection against this decision.

On 22 September 1997 the District Administrative Authority dismissed the applicant's objection and issued a penal order (Straferkenntnis) confirming its previous decision. It found that the applicant had failed to give complete information as requested in the order of 12 March.

The applicant appealed on 1 October 1997 submitting in particular that she had replied to the District Administrative Authority's order, but had been unable to find out the exact address of Mr J.S. Further, she claimed that the obligation under section 103 § 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act to disclose the driver of her car violated the presumption of innocence and her right not to incriminate herself. Finally, she pointed out that she was a German national and that German law did not contain a comparable obligation of the registered car owner to disclose who had been driving the car at a specified time.

On 26 November 1997 the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) dismissed the applicant's appeal. As to the applicant's complaint that the obligation under section 103 § 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act violated the right not to incriminate oneself and the presumption of innocence, it noted that the relevant sentence of that provision had constitutional rank.

On 30 December 1997 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). She repeated the complaint as to the alleged violation of her right not to incriminate herself.

On 9 June 1998 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant's complaint for lack of sufficient prospects of success.

On 30 June 2000 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) refused to deal with the applicant's complaint pursuant to section 33a of the Administrative Court Act since the amount of the penalty did not exceed ATS 10,000 and no important legal problem was at stake.

The applicant was not prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit.