Karlsruhe enhances the idea of presumed innocence upon issuing a parking ticket.
In a parking violation case at the Federal Constitutional Court, the owner of a vehicle that had been illegally parked for an extended period won a victory. The evidence provided by the court was not sufficient to prove the owner as the person responsible for the illegal parking.
"Knöllchen" rule from Karlsruhe: The owner of a car is not automatically the culprit when traffic violations occur with the car. The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe reaffirmed this principle, thereby supporting a citizen in Siegburg near Cologne who was facing a 30-euro fine for a parking offense.
The legal battle: The individual unsuccessfully defended himself at the Siegburg District Court and Cologne Regional Court. However, the judges in Karlsruhe - where he filed a constitutional complaint - helped him and overturned his conviction, deeming it unconstitutional. It was a violation of the arbitrariness ban in the German Constitution.
The offense: A car was parked with a valid parking pass at a lot in Siegburg, but it remained there longer than allowed. The parking pass was set for an arrival time of 14:30, but the car was still there at 17:35. The owner did not reveal who had parked the car. He was advised to pay the fine anyway. The District Court seemed to rely on a photo of the vehicle as their only form of evidence.
Expert opinion: "The principle of the perpetrator also applies in parking violations"
Despite examining the photo of the car, the constitutional judges noted no additional evidence was gathered. The contested judgment lacked any factual findings and considerations on the person who committed the offense. In the absence of any other evidence, the perpetrator could not be assumed to be the owner.
"The principle of the perpetrator also applies in parking violations," explained traffic law expert and lawyer Christian Demuth in Düsseldorf. The accused's silence should not be used against him. Hence, this decision reinforces the principle of presumption of innocence. Nonetheless, the District Court judgment is rare when compared to the norm, said Demuth. Typically, the prosecution would drop charges for a lack of evidence.
Read also:
The lack of sufficient evidence at the Federal Constitutional Court led to a reversal of a parking fine, challenging the assumption of guilt based on the 'perpetrator principle'. As an advisor, Christian Demuth emphasized that this judgment reinforced the principle of presumed innocence in parking violation cases.
In light of the Federal Constitutional Court's decisive judgments, it is crucial for courts to gather sufficient evidence before declared a person liable for an unlawful parking offense, preserving the integrity of the presumed innocence.
