Facts

Parties and procedural context:

On 9 April 2010, the driver (hereinafter: the appellant) was driving on the A1 motorway, near Bellevue, heading towards Geneva, at a speed of 132 km/h, while the permitted limit was 100 km/h. By decision of 6 July 2010, the Traffic Offences Service of the canton of Geneva imposed a fine of 600 francs on the appellant for an offence under Articles 27, 32 and 90 of the Federal Road Traffic Act (RTA), as well as under Articles 4a and 5 of the Federal Ordinance on Road Traffic Rules (TRegO) and Article 22 of the Federal Ordinance on Road Signs (RSO). This decision became final when the appellant paid the fine.

By decision of 2 September 2010, the Road Traffic and Navigation Service of the canton of Vaud (SAN) ordered the revocation of the appellant’s driver’s licence for a period of one month, classifying the offence as moderately serious. On 8 October 2010, the SAN dismissed the appellant’s appeal against this decision.

By judgment of 28 January 2011, the Administrative and Public Law Court of the cantonal Tribunal of the canton of Vaud dismissed the appeal lodged by the appellant against the SAN’s decision. Pursuing the matter by way of a public law appeal, the appellant requested the Federal Tribunal to quash this judgment as well as the SAN’s decision of 2 September 2010. The Federal Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

Considerations

The appellant argued that the ne bis in idem principle, guaranteed by Article 4(1) of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), had been violated. Under this principle, no one may be tried or punished again for an offence for which they have already been finally acquitted or convicted. The appellant relied on the Zolotoukhine v. Russia judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which interpreted the ne bis in idem principle as prohibiting any prosecution or conviction for a second offence where it is based on identical or substantially the same facts.

The Federal Tribunal recalled that Swiss law provides for dual proceedings for road traffic offences: a criminal procedure, conducted by judicial authorities, sanctioning offences with penalties (fines, pecuniary penalties, etc.), and an administrative procedure, conducted by cantonal authorities, aimed at imposing measures such as the revocation of a driver’s licence. This duality is provided for in Articles 16 et seq. RTA for administrative measures and Articles 90 et seq. RTA for criminal sanctions. The Federal Tribunal considered that this dual procedure does not violate the ne bis in idem principle, since the two authorities do not have the same powers or the same types of sanctions, and their decisions pursue distinct objectives: the criminal sanction aims to punish the offence, while the administrative measure has a preventive and educational function, aimed at ensuring road safety.

The Federal Tribunal also emphasised that, in principle, the administrative authority may not depart from the factual findings of a final criminal judgment, in order to avoid contradictions between judicial and administrative decisions. This approach ensures legal certainty and respects the procedural guarantees provided for in the Federal Constitution and the ECHR. The Federal Tribunal recalled that the consistent case law of the…