Facts

A. (appellant), born in 1998, held a probationary driving licence. On 8 June 2018, while reversing, he caused a traffic accident by overlooking a cyclist who was correctly approaching from the opposite direction and colliding with her; the cyclist sustained minor injuries. The Traffic Safety Centre OW/NW (respondent) examined on 27 June 2018 whether to initiate administrative proceedings, but suspended them pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

On 8 September 2018, A., as driver of a military vehicle, caused a self-accident due to failure to adjust his speed, whereby three of his five passengers sustained minor injuries. The Traffic Safety Centre OW/NW thereupon annulled the probationary driving licence by decision of 14 January 2019 and decision on objection of 14 March 2019, based on Art. 15a para. 4 RTA.

The Cantonal Administrative Court of Nidwalden dismissed A.'s appeal by judgment of 30 September 2019. A. lodged a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and requested that the probationary driving licence be reissued to him. The Traffic Safety Centre OW/NW and the Federal Roads Office FEDRO requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The issue in dispute and to be examined was whether Art. 15a para. 4 RTA also leads to the expiry of the probationary driving licence where the decision on the first infringement had not yet been issued and notified to the driver at the time of the second infringement.

Considerations

The probationary driving licence is issued for three years; if it is withdrawn due to an infringement, the probationary period is extended by one year. Under Art. 15a para. 4 RTA, it expires upon the second infringement leading to withdrawal. The purpose is to require novice drivers to drive flawlessly during the probationary period and to increase road safety. Even minor cases, for which withdrawal would be ordered under Art. 16a para. 2 RTA, fall under Art. 15a para. 4 RTA.

It is undisputed that A. committed one infringement each on 8 June 2018 and on 8 September 2018, each of which would justify withdrawal of the licence. According to settled case law (BGE 136 II 447), expiry does not require that the preceding withdrawal has been enforced or has become final. Decisive is solely that a first infringement leading to withdrawal is followed by a second infringement which likewise results in withdrawal. Until now it has been left open whether this also applies where the decision on the first infringement has not yet even been notified.

In legal doctrine, it is partly argued that in such cases Art. 49 SCC should be applied by analogy and a combined measure imposed. The Federal Supreme Court rejects this: since the law mandatorily provides for expiry upon a second infringement,…