Facts
Parties and procedural history:
The complainant ([A.] , born 1967) obtained a category B driving licence in 1986 and had been self-employed as a driving instructor since 2002. Repeated measures were imposed on him due to lack of character suitability and alcohol problems, including several indefinite revocations of the driving licence and the driving instructor licence. The most recent procedural development began with a traffic psychology assessment in 2020, which led to a negative expert opinion. Thereupon, on 18 February 2021, the Road Traffic Office of the Canton of St. Gallen revoked the complainant’s driving licence, his licence for professional passenger transport and his driving instructor licence indefinitely due to lack of driving aptitude (character). The complainant filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Commission on 17 October 2022 and by the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen on 3 March 2023. On 10 April 2023, the complainant filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Development of the facts:
The complainant challenged, in particular, the violation of federal law by the ordering and use of a traffic psychology expert opinion as well as the application of road traffic regulations. He also complained of the violation of his economic freedom (Art. 27 Cst.) and cantonal procedural law. New evidence, including a traffic psychology expert opinion dated 27 June 2023 and a medical certificate dated 23 October 2023, were classified by the Federal Supreme Court as true novae and therefore not taken into account.
Considerations
Admissibility of the appeal:
The Federal Supreme Court first examines the formal requirements of the public law appeal. It will consider the appeal insofar as the complainant seeks the annulment of the lower-instance decision and the re-issuance of the revoked licences. It will not, however, consider the requests to classify the expert opinion of 27 June 2023 as a second expert opinion or the blanket request for legal and factual assessment of the official conduct.
Application of federal law:
The Federal Supreme Court examines the application of federal law ex officio. The complainant argues that the lower instance violated road traffic regulations (Art. 15d, 16d RTA, Art. 27 lit. b DIO) by using a traffic psychology expert opinion to assess driving aptitude without the requirements of Art. 15d RTA having been met. The Federal Supreme Court notes that a driving aptitude assessment may be ordered if there are concrete indications giving rise to serious doubts about driving aptitude. Such doubts may arise in particular from character traits or traffic rule violations. In the present case, there have been sufficient doubts about the complainant’s driving aptitude since 2015, which were confirmed by the expert opinion of 2021. The ordering of the assessment and the administrative measures based thereon are therefore in conformity with federal law.
Economic freedom (Art. 27 Cst.):
The revocation of the driving licence, the driving instructor licence and the licence for professional passenger transport constitutes a serious interference with the complainant’s economic freedom. However, there are sufficient legal bases for these measures (Art. 16 para. 1, 16d RTA).…