The AI workspace for legal professionals

  • Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
  • Document automation
  • Matter management
  • Hosted in the EU and Switzerland

Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)

Try for freeBook a demo

Speeding cannot be justified by emergency duty without real danger

ATA/636/1996Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberOct 29, 1996Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The court held that a SIG alarm messenger who exceeded the speed limit by 42 km/h could not justify the conduct by invoking emergency duty, because no threat to human life was established. The appellant also failed to prove a mistaken factual perception that would allow reliance on mistake of fact under Art. 19 CP. The appeal was dismissed and the licence-withdrawal measure was left intact.

Omnilex headnote

Art. 27 para. 1 SVG, Art. 32 SVG, Art. 19 CP; speeding may be excused only if a concrete, imminent danger justifies departure from traffic rules. A professional duty of intervention does not, by itself, satisfy necessity where no life-threatening situation is shown. A plea of factual mistake requires proof that the driver acted on an erroneous perception of the decisive circumstances; absent such proof, the subjective justification fails. In such circumstances, a licence-withdrawal measure based on serious speeding is upheld.

Full text

Descripteurs

ALARME; EXCES DE VITESSE; ETAT DE NECESSITE; RETRAIT DE PERMIS; PERMIS DE CONDUIRE; LCR

Normes

LCR.27 al.1; LCR.19; LCR.32

Résumé

Un huissier en charge d'alarmes SIG ne peut se prévaloir de sa fonction pour justifier un excès de vitesse de 42 km/h, tant et aussi longtemps qu'il y a absence de risque vital pour des êtres humains. De même, il ne saurait être au bénéfice de l'art. 19 CP s'il ne parvient à démontrer s'être construit une image erronée de la situation. Un huissier en charge d'alarmes SIG ne peut se prévaloir de sa fonction pour justifier un excès de vitesse de 42 km/h, tant et aussi longtemps qu'il y a absence de risque vital pour des êtres humains. De même, il ne saurait être au bénéfice de l'art. 19 CP s'il ne parvient à démontrer s'être construit une image erronée de la situation. Un huissier en charge d'alarmes SIG ne peut se prévaloir de sa fonction pour justifier un excès de vitesse de 42 km/h, tant et aussi longtemps qu'il y a absence de risque vital pour des êtres humains. De même, il ne saurait être au bénéfice de l'art. 19 CP s'il ne parvient à démontrer s'être construit une image erronée de la situation.

Keywords

speedingnecessitymistake of factdriving licence withdrawaltraffic rulesemergency duty

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the speeding breach could be justified by necessity because of the appellant's alarm duty at SIG.

Extracted holding

The appellant could not rely on necessity because there was no imminent danger to human life.

Extracted reasoning

A professional alarm duty does not justify speeding of 42 km/h where no life-threatening risk for humans is shown.

Key legal question

Whether the appellant could invoke mistake of fact under Article 19 CP.

Extracted holding

The defence failed because the appellant did not demonstrate that he had formed an erroneous perception of the situation.

Extracted reasoning

The court required proof of a mistaken factual image; such proof was not provided.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.