Facts
On 18 February 1975, [L.] drove his vehicle in Zurich and collided with a taxi coming from Kalchbühlstrasse. On 27 January 1975, the Chief of Police of the City of Zurich had abolished the right-of-way at the southern intersection of Kalchbühlstrasse and Widmerstrasse. This decision was published on 3 February 1975 in the "Tagblatt der Stadt Zürich", the official gazette of the city, with the note that any appeals would not have suspensive effect. However, on 18 February 1975, the date of the accident, this decision had not yet been indicated on site. [L.] was convicted by the single judge of the District Court of Zurich for violation of Art. 36 para. 2 RTA and Art. 14 para. 1 TRegO. His nullity appeal was rejected by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich.Considerations
According to case law, traffic police decisions only take effect if and as long as they are indicated on site by a corresponding sign or marking. In the present case, it is established that the abolition of the right-of-way at the southern intersection of Kalchbühlstrasse and Widmerstrasse, decided on 27 January 1975 and published on 3 February 1975, was not yet indicated on 18 February 1975, the date of the accident. Consequently, the traffic coming from Kalchbühlstrasse had the right-of-way over the vehicle driven by L.
However, the question is whether [L.] acted with guilt. [L.] argues that he was convinced that the abolition of the right-of-way had been indicated by sign No. 116. He thus invokes an error of fact. The lower court admitted this error, but nevertheless convicted [L.] on the grounds that he could have avoided it by exercising the required diligence.
However, the Federal Tribunal considers that the citizen can in principle rely on the fact that officially published traffic…