Facts
The complainant [X.] had his driver's license revoked for three months and later for twelve months due to driving despite revocation. He appealed against the second revocation to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Lucerne and requested a grant of free legal aid. The Administrative Court rejected the request and demanded an advance payment of costs. After the complainant failed to pay the advance payment on time, the Administrative Court did not consider the complaint. The complainant filed a request for reinstatement of the deadline, which was rejected.
The complainant filed a complaint with the FSCA and alleged a violation of Art. 8 and Art. 29a Cst. He argued that the Administrative Court should have granted him an additional deadline before the decision not to consider the complaint.
Considerations
The FSCA examined whether the complaint met the requirements of Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA. It found that the complaint had not become moot, as the suspensive effect existed in the administrative court proceedings.
The court ruled that the complainant had no opportunity to bring his legal dispute before a court due to the decision not to consider the complaint and the contested decision. However, it examined whether the complaint met the requirements of Art. 29a Cst. and whether the division president had incorrectly applied cantonal provisions on reinstatement in violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness.
The court concluded that the cantons are free to organize the court system and procedural law…