Fine and licence withdrawal: Glarner challenges Switzerland’s dual traffic penalties

One traffic offence, two proceedings and separate bills: Swiss People’s Party MP Andreas Glarner wants to change how Switzerland deals with drivers who break the law. The Aargau politician submitted a proposal during parliament’s autumn session in Bern that would end driving licence withdrawals for minor and moderately serious offences and put courts in charge of all sanctions. The Social Democrats oppose it.

The proposal challenges a fundamental distinction in Swiss road traffic law. A driver may first receive a summary penalty order imposing a fine or another punishment, alongside procedural costs. The cantonal road traffic office can then deal with the same incident separately, deciding whether an administrative measure, such as withdrawing the driving licence, is necessary. That process brings its own costs.

Why one offence can trigger two proceedings

The two procedures have different legal purposes. Criminal proceedings assess and punish misconduct. Administrative proceedings are intended to protect road safety and prevent a driver from posing further dangers. The same incident can therefore lead both to a criminal penalty and to action by the road traffic office.

Not every traffic offence automatically means losing a licence. Whether an offence is classified as minor, moderately serious or serious depends on the legal criteria and the circumstances. A warning is possible for minor offences under certain conditions. For moderately serious and serious offences, the law sets minimum withdrawal periods. Previous offences can make the consequences more severe.

Alcohol illustrates why those distinctions matter. Driving with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.8 parts per thousand is generally a serious offence, not a minor one. Switzerland’s general limit is 0.5 parts per thousand. A call to ease the consequences for minor and moderately serious offences therefore does not automatically cover everything casually described as a driving misdemeanour.

For residents navigating the Swiss system, the distinction is practical as well as legal: the criminal penalty and the decision about keeping a licence are separate matters, even when both stem from the same journey.

Challenging the wrong decision

That separation also affects appeals. Contesting a summary penalty order does not automatically challenge a measure imposed by the cantonal road traffic office. A separate challenge is required. Drivers can consequently find themselves fighting a punishment when their real priority is retaining their licence.

Success in criminal proceedings does not replace the necessary challenge to an administrative measure. Yet the two processes are not entirely independent: findings about what happened in the criminal case can also matter to the administrative authority. For those affected, the crucial questions are which document they have received, what decision it contains and what avenues of challenge it provides.

Beyond this complexity lie financial and personal pressures. Costs arise in different proceedings. Losing a licence can also seriously disrupt working life for someone who depends on a car professionally. Glarner puts those drivers at the centre of his criticism: for them, the consequences of a single offence extend beyond the punishment itself.

Courts would decide all sanctions

The existing system “frequently places a double burden on those affected”, Glarner writes in his proposal. His demand goes beyond simplifying administration. He wants no licence withdrawal for minor and moderately serious offences, with courts alone deciding all sanctions.

A court must “be able to coordinate both the fine and any driving licence withdrawal proportionately”, he argues. Under his model, road traffic offices would remain responsible for implementation, but the power to decide on withdrawal would move from the administration to the judiciary.

The proposal thus combines two distinct ambitions: fewer parallel proceedings and lighter consequences. A single procedure could make it clearer to drivers which authority is responsible. Whether licence withdrawals should become less frequent or shorter is a separate political question, affecting not just administrative workload but the level of safety sought on Swiss roads.

Social Democrats warn against weaker protection

David Roth, a Social Democratic MP from Lucerne who works on transport policy, rejects merging the procedures. He draws a firm line between punishment and prevention: “Criminal prosecution punishes misconduct; administrative proceedings protect society.” In his view, that difference justifies keeping them separate.

Roth stresses the responsibility that comes with driving a heavy vehicle. Driving under the influence of alcohol, holding a mobile phone to the ear while driving or travelling well above the speed limit in a built-up area puts others in danger. “It sends the wrong signal for Glarner to call for soft justice here,” he says.

Whether Glarner can secure a parliamentary majority remains uncertain. Switzerland’s recent direction does not necessarily favour his approach. The country has tightened important rules through its provisions against extreme speeding and the reduction of the general alcohol limit from 0.8 to 0.5 parts per thousand. Throughout those changes, the coexistence of criminal and administrative proceedings remained largely uncontested.

For Glarner, the proposal is among his final political initiatives in the National Council, the lower house of the Swiss parliament. He will attend his last session in December before stepping down.

For drivers, nothing changes for now: the existing procedures and division of responsibilities remain in force. Parliament faces a choice over whether the burden of two proceedings warrants restructuring the system, or whether their separate purposes are precisely what makes the current arrangement necessary.