Road traffic law is inherently multidisciplinary.
Any violation of the Federal Road Traffic Act (LCR) inevitably leads to a criminal sanction (see section B).
Depending on the severity of the LCR violation, it may also result in an administrative penalty (see section C).
Additionally, the LCR has significant implications in civil law, particularly regarding liability.
Notably, Article 58, paragraph 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) establishes a presumption of civil liability for the vehicle owner if their use results in death, injury, or property damage.
Article 58, paragraph 3 CO specifies that the vehicle owner is liable for the driver’s and the assistants’ faults as if they were their own.
The significance of Article 58, paragraph 3 CO must be understood in conjunction with Article 63 CO, which mandates liability insurance for vehicles to be legally operated on public roads.
This mandatory insurance covers the civil liability of the owner and those they are responsible for under the LCR.
Furthermore, Article 65 LCR grants victims the right to directly pursue the insurer, ensuring they can claim compensation from a solvent entity.
Similarly, Article 74 LCR establishes the National Insurance Bureau (BNA).
The BNA is formed and operated by insurance companies authorized to conduct liability insurance for vehicles in Switzerland.
The primary purpose of the BNA is to cover damages caused by foreign vehicles or trailers within Switzerland.
Thus, a victim of an accident in Switzerland can sue the BNA if the responsible vehicle is registered abroad.
Criminal aspect:
A violation of the LCR leads to a criminal penalty, which may include a fine, a contravention, a financial penalty, or even imprisonment.
The appropriate criminal authority depends on the severity of the violation.
LCR violations are prosecuted ex officio.
In cases of accidents with injuries, an LCR violation may be combined with other offenses (e.g., property damage, negligent bodily injury, negligent homicide).
If the additional offense is also prosecuted ex officio (e.g., simple bodily injury), the victim can withdraw their complaint or choose not to file it.
However, the criminal proceedings for the LCR violation will continue as it is a state prerogative.
The criminal proceedings will determine the facts for the administrative process.
It should be noted that criminal and administrative proceedings are conducted by separate authorities and run simultaneously.
Therefore, it is common to request the suspension of the administrative process until the criminal verdict is reached.
This allows the defendant to ensure that favorable facts are considered in the administrative proceedings.
The criminal judge does not decide on driving license sanctions, so the defendant’s personal or professional need for a license does not influence the criminal penalty.
Administrative aspect:
Apart from procedures concerning a driver’s fitness to drive, the initiation of an administrative procedure presupposes a criminal violation of the LCR.
If the violation itself is contested, this should be addressed within the criminal proceedings (see section B).
The administrative procedure deals with sanctions related to driving authorization.
These sanctions can range from a warning to permanent revocation of the driving license.
A distinction must be made between a warning withdrawal and a safety withdrawal of the driving license.
A warning withdrawal serves to punish the individual for committing an LCR violation.
The duration of the license suspension depends on the severity of the violation, the circumstances, and the individual’s history.
A safety withdrawal aims to remove a driver considered dangerous to other road users.
Both preventive and permanent withdrawals pursue the same objective.
Reinstating a license after a safety withdrawal requires the individual to prove they are fit to drive again.
Typically, this assessment occurs after a probationary period and is based on a favorable forensic medical evaluation.
