The imposition of “penalty points” and the subsequent ban on driving due to violation of the traffic code, doen’t constitute a double sanction
JUDGMENT
Matijašić v. Croatia 01.07.2021 (app. no. 38771/15)
SUMMARY
Prosecution and punishment for traffic offense. Later ban on driving due to “penalty points” that had been collected (point system). The applicant complained that he had been convicted twice in the same way for the same offense.
The ECtHR declared the action inadmissible, as the driving ban imposed on the applicant as a result of the negative points collected could not be considered “criminal”. According to the relevant national legislation, the driving ban under the Road Traffic Code is legally characterized as a precautionary administrative measure, different from any penalty that may be imposed on misdemeanors or offenses. Moreover, the case law of the Court emphasizes the importance of establishing a legislative and administrative framework aimed at effectively preventing the dangers of life in the context of road safety.
The ECtHR found no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.
PROVISION
Article 4 of the 7th Additional Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Darko Matijašić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Motovun
(Croatia).
In 2013 and 2014 in the Istria area the applicant was given a speeding fine in minor-offence
proceedings and three penalty points were added to his licence on three separate occasions. On 6
August 2014 the police in Istria banned him from driving all motor vehicles on account of the penalty
points he had collected. An appeal by the applicant was deemed to be unfounded. The High Minor
Offences Court stated that the measure was not a penalty, merely a consequence of having
accumulated too many penalty points within a statutory period of time.
A constitutional complaint by the applicant to the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible on
27 January 2015.
Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), the applicant
complained that his prosecution and punishment for minor road traffic offences, and the
subsequent application of a driving ban on account of the same offences, had violated the
Convention.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
The Court noted at the outset that the case concerned a situation in which the driving ban had been
imposed on the applicant as a result of the fact that he had collected a certain number of penalty
points for traffic violations he had committed over a statutory period of time and should therefore
be distinguished from previous cases it had examined in which the imposition of the driving ban had
been issued as part of the sanction for a particular road traffic offence.
The Government argued that the driving ban imposed on the applicant as a result of the penalty
points collected could not be considered “criminal” in nature.
Under the relevant domestic law, a driving ban under section 286(6) of the Road Traffic Safety Act
was classified as a preventive administrative measure, distinct from any penalty that may be applied
in criminal or minor offences proceedings. Noting that a number of countries implemented a system
of penalty points in traffic, and that its own case-law stressed the importance of putting in place a
legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to
the right to life in the context of road traffic, the Court was satisfied that the primary aim of the
driving ban had been preventive, to ensure road traffic safety.
Consequently, Mr Matijašić had not been subjected to a criminal charge when the police had applied
the driving ban on account of his accumulated penalty points under section 286(6) of the Road
Traffic Safety Act. The Court therefore concluded that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 did not apply in his
case and rejected his application as inadmissible.
