Onder 4.20 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 19 december 2014

58. A further aspect of the compulsion applied in the present cases is the limited nature of the inquiry which the police were authorised to undertake. Section 172(2)(a) applies only where the driver of the vehicle is alleged to have committed a relevant offence, and authorises the police to require information only “as to the identity of the driver”. The information is thus markedly more restricted than in previous cases, in which applicants have been subjected to statutory powers requiring production of “papers and documents of any kind relating to operations of interest to [the] department” (see Funke, cited above, § 30), or of “documents, etc., which might be relevant for the assessment of taxes” (see J.B. v. Switzerland, cited above, § 39). (...) The information requested of the applicant in Weh was limited, as in the present case, to “information as to who had driven a certain motor vehicle ... at a certain time ...” (...). The Court found no violation of Article 6 in that case on the ground that no proceedings were pending or anticipated against him. It noted that the requirement to state a simple fact – who had been the driver of the car – was not in itself incriminating (...). Further,(...), section 172 does not sanction prolonged questioning about facts alleged to give rise to criminal offences, and the penalty for declining to answer is “moderate and non-custodial”.

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/f3dee8bfcc9e25b9bc28b784114a4ec9f09296e7ba0a534d40e9085faf4ef1c5 | shasum -a 256