CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 5 May 2017     FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20962/15 Manfred KINDLHOFER against Austria lodged on 20 April 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative criminal proceedings, in which the applicant was fined by an administrative authority for an infringement of the Road Traffic Act ( Straßenverkehrsordnung ). Because the actual fine was below 400 euros, the Styria Regional Administrative Court ( Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark ), in accordance with the applicable legal provisions, declared that a request for revision of the judgment to the Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) was not permissible for the applicant. The Constitutional Court ( Verfassungsgerichtshof ) rejected dealing with the applicant’s complaint. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the impossibility for the applicant to seize the Administrative Court, whereas this was open to the authority having issued the challenged ruling?   2.     Was the applicant afforded the right of appeal envisaged by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7? In particular, did the Constitutional Court constitute such an appellate instance despite of its limited powers of review? Or did the absence of an appeal in the present case fall within the exceptions laid down by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 7?