Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=19.10.2004&Aktenzeichen=66273/01
Timestamp: 2018-12-11 19:19:51+00:00

Document:
EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 66273/01 - dejure.org
Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK; Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 1 GG; Vor § 1 OWiG; Vor § 1 StVG
Verhältnismäßiger Schutz der Unschuldsvermutung gegen strict liability-Delikte und belastende Beweislastregeln bzw. Beweislastumkehr (hinreichende Beachtung der Verteidigungsrechte; Verhältnismäßigkeit; Anwendung auf das Verkehrsstrafrecht bzw. Ordnungswidrigkeitenrecht; subsidiäre Tatverantwortlichkeit des Fahrzeughalters für Bagatellvergehen); Selbstbelastungsfreiheit
They have, for example, chosen to draw adverse inferences from a failure to answer questions, or established a statutory but rebuttable presumption of fact that the registered owner of the motor vehicle was the driver in question (see, for instance, Falk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 66273/01, 19 October 2004).
37. In Falk v. the Netherlands (dec.), (no. 66273/01, 19 October 2004) the Court found that the registered owner's liability for minor traffic offences was not incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat allerdings angesichts der Geringfügigkeit des Verstoßes und der Sanktion einerseits und der Vielzahl der insgesamt begangenen Verstöße andererseits die niederländische Regelung über die Halterhaftung für mit Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK vereinbar gehalten (vgl. EGMR, Beschluss vom 19.10.2004, Az. 66273/01, Falk v. Netherlands, HRRS 2005, Nr. 209, Rn. 47 f.).
EGMR, 29.09.2011 - 3127/09
The Court has previously assessed cases in which similar types of "charges" were in question and found that they were "criminal" in nature (see, mutatis mutandis, Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, §§ 46-56, Series A no. 73; Falk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 66273/01, ECHR 2004-XI; and Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, §§ 30-36, 1 February 2005).
EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 57655/08
SUHADOLC v. SLOVENIA
The Court will proceed on the assumption that Article 6 is applicable to the facts of the case (see Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, §§ 47-56, Series A no. 73; Falk v. Nederlands (dec.), no. 66273/01, ECHR 2004-XI, and Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 39, ECHR 1998-VII).
EGMR, 28.02.2013 - 22163/08
MESESNEL v. SLOVENIA
The Court notes that it is not in dispute between the parties that the criminal limb of Article 6 was applicable to the proceedings complained of by the applicant, and sees no reason to disagree (see Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, §§ 46-56, Series A no. 73; Falk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 66273/01, ECHR 2004-XI; and Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, §§ 30-36, 1 February 2005).
EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 7094/06
ROMET v. THE NETHERLANDS
Again leaving aside the question whether the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention have been met, the Court points out that in Falk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 66273/01, ECHR 2004-XI, it found, inter alia, that a person fined under Article 5 of the Traffic Regulations Administrative Enforcement Act could challenge the fine before a trial court with full competence in the matter.
Elle a également déjà considéré qu'en conséquence une procédure relative à une amende infligée pour pareille infraction relève du champ d'application de l'article 6 de la Convention sous son aspect pénal (Falk c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 66273/01, CEDH 2004-XI).

References: Art. 6
 Art. 2
 Art. 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 Art. 6
 § 39
 § 1