If the driver cannot be identified after traffic violations, the owner of the car can be obliged to keep a logbook. Even if there were hints as to who was responsible.
The obligation to keep a driver's log can also be legitimate if a potential driver has been named. Anyone who, for example, as a spouse, invokes their right to refuse to testify or testify, cannot hope for a "double right" to avoid being issued with a driver's log. This is shown by a decision by the Saarlouis Higher Administrative Court, about which the ADAC reports (Az.: 1 B 67/22). It sounds complex at first, but the background is clear.
What happened? A company car was flashed at 31 kilometers per hour too fast - in a 30 km/h zone. The owner was not behind the wheel. And she did not name her husband - the alleged driver - directly in the witness questionnaire. She only informed her lawyer that the car was regularly available to her husband.
Bad photo - proceedings will be discontinued
The husband, in turn, referred to the bad photo and referred to his right to remain silent. Police officers visited the place of residence several times and also met the husband. He claimed not to be able to identify the person behind the wheel. The car would also be used by others occasionally.
In the end, the case was discontinued. However, the owner should keep a logbook for the car for 18 months. Because she would not have shown the necessary participation in the determination of the driver. So it was not possible for the authority to identify the driver with reasonable means.
Again, the woman appealed. She argued that by referring to her husband she would have fulfilled her obligation to cooperate. The photo was very bad, even the police officers did not recognize the husband who was there.
The court rejected her application. The statement that the husband uses the vehicle "regularly" also allows the conclusion that there could be exceptions. Nor did it matter that the owner was not obliged to incriminate herself or her husband.
According to the court's conviction, anyone who invokes the right to refuse to testify or testify in administrative offense proceedings must know that they are not entitled to a "double right" and are therefore not spared the obligation to keep a logbook. Accordingly, this requirement is lawful.
