Facts

The appellant ([A.] , born 1983), represented by counsel, challenges the withdrawal of his driving licence for an indefinite period, but at least for two years. The respondents are the Traffic Division of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Schaffhausen and the Canton of Schaffhausen, acting through the Cantonal Government Council.

On 1 November 2016 the appellant caused a collision with a preceding passenger car on the Strassackerstrasse in Neuhausen am Rheinfall, in which the passenger was injured. By penal order of 24 September 2018, the Public Prosecutor's Office See/Oberland of the Canton of Zurich convicted him, among other things, of negligent bodily injury and imposed a fine. On 21 November 2016 he exceeded the permitted maximum speed by 27 km/h in Neftenbach.

By decision of 9 July 2019, the Traffic Division of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Schaffhausen withdrew his driving licence for an indefinite period, but at least for two years. The Cantonal Government Council (decision of 10 September 2019) and the Obergericht of the Canton of Schaffhausen (judgment of 13 March 2020, 60/2019/34) dismissed the appeals.

Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant requests that the withdrawal period be set at six months. The Public Prosecutor's Office, the Cantonal Government Council and the Federal Roads Office (FEDRO) request dismissal.

The issue is whether the cantonal court violated federal law by upholding the withdrawal for an indefinite period, but at least for two years.

Key content:

  • Two moderately serious offences (1 and 21 November 2016) are undisputed.
  • Background: withdrawal in 2008 (serious offence), withdrawal in 2014 (two months, moderately serious offence of 6 January 2013), withdrawal in 2016 (eight months, two serious offences of 27 October 2013).
  • It is disputed whether the withdrawals of 2014 and 2016 are to be counted as two withdrawals within the meaning of Art. 16b para. 2 RTA or as one due to retrospective concurrence (Art. 49 para. 2 SCC).

Considerations

The appeal under public law is in principle admissible (Art. 82 lit. a, Art. 86 FSCA etc.). The Federal Supreme Court applies federal law of its own motion but examines complaints of violation of fundamental rights only insofar as they are raised with specific substantiation (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA). Complaints concerning the establishment of facts are admissible only within the scope of Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA and must be substantiated.

Under the Federal Act on Road Traffic (RTA), a moderately serious offence (Art. 16b para. 1 lit. a RTA) leads to withdrawal of the licence, the minimum duration of which depends on the number of withdrawals in the preceding years (Art. 16b para. 2 RTA). Where there are several grounds for withdrawal, the concurrence rules of Art. 49 SCC apply by analogy, whereby the duration of the most severe measure is to be increased appropriately. In the case of retrospective concurrence (Art. 49 para. 2 SCC), the driver may not be sanctioned more severely than if the two offences had been adjudicated at the same time.

The cantonal court treated the withdrawals of 2014 and 2016 as two withdrawals. The appellant argues that the offences of 2013 were committed before the withdrawal decision concerning the incident of 6 January 2013, so that only one withdrawal exists. The Federal Supreme Court counters that the cascade system of the law links to the number of…