BLOKKER - Netherlands (N° 45282/99)
Decision 7.11.2000 [Section I]

The applicant was found driving under the influence of alcohol by the police. Following criminal proceedings, he was convicted of drunken driving and sentenced to a fine and a disqualification from driving for six months. Parallel to the criminal proceedings and pursuant to administrative regulations, the Minister of Transport decided that the applicant should go through a course designed for persons found to have driven under the influence of alcohol, the costs to be borne by the applicant. Failure to co-operate would result in his driving licence being declared invalid. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed.

Inadmissible under Article 6(1): The measure does not come within the criminal law but rather administrative law provisions. Its educational aim is to raise the awareness of a specific category of drivers of the dangers of drunken driving and its imposition is autonomous from the criminal conviction for drunken driving. The measure amounts to a verification of the suitability and ability of a person to drive a vehicle and is aimed at the security of both the person concerned and other road-users; as such it should be compared to the issuing of a driving licence, which results from an administrative procedure to assess the ability of future drivers. This is not altered by the fact that the costs are to be borne by the person concerned. These costs as well as the attendance at the course can be compared to the time and costs of lessons needed for obtaining a driving licence and thus cannot make it a criminal charge. The fact that a driving licence may be declared invalid should the person not attend the course or not pay for it can be compared to a failure to pay for or take a driving test. Declaring a driving licence invalid on such grounds should be distinguished from disqualification from driving, which is ordered by a criminal court in the context of criminal proceedings and where the court qualifies the offence giving rise to disqualification before imposing it as a secondary penalty for a limited period of time. Article 6 is therefore not applicable under its criminal head: incompatible ratione materiae.