Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement strictly defined” which could be “interpreted similarly within both crimes” as was done in that particular case.202 In other words, they gave rise to unacceptable legal insecurity. ***** The principle of ne bis in idem in article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention was violated in the case of Gradinger, concerning an applicant who had already been convicted by an Austrian Regional Court for causing death by negligence while driving his car. According to the Regional Court, which based itself on the Criminal Code, the applicant’s alcohol level was not such that it would have constituted an aggravating factor.203 However, the District Attorney disagreed with the conclusion and, invoking the Road Traffic Act, imposed a fine on the applicant “with two weeks’ imprisonment in default, for driving under the influence of drink”.204 The European Court was of the view that, although the Criminal Code and the Road Traffic Act differed both as to “the designation of the offences” and “their nature and purpose”, “the impugned decisions were based on the same conduct” thereby constituting a violation of the principle of ne bis in idem.205 In the case of Oliveira, however, the outcome was different. The applicant had been driving on a road covered with ice and snow when her car veered onto the other side of the road, hitting one car and colliding with a second car whose driver was seriously injured. A police magistrate subsequently convicted the applicant on the basis of Sections 31 and 32 of the Federal Road Traffic Act of “failing to control her vehicle, as she had not adapted her speed to the road conditions”; she was sentenced to a fine of 200 Swiss francs (CHF).206 Subsequently, the District Attorney’s Office issued a penal order fining the applicant CHF 2000 “for negligently causing physical injury” contrary to article 125 of the Swiss Criminal Code; on appeal this fine was reduced to CHF 1,500, and, after deduction of the first fine of CHF 200, to CHF 1,300.207 Before the European Court of Human Rights, the applicant complained of a violation of article 4 of Protocol No. 7, arguing that the same incident had led to her being convicted twice, first for failing to control her vehicle and then for negligently causing physical injury.208 In the view of the European Court this is “a typical example of a single act constituting various offences (concours idéal d’infractions)”, and the “characteristic feature of this notion is that a single criminal act is split up in two separate offences”; in such cases “the greater penalty will usually absorb the lesser one”.209 In the view of the Court, however, 202 Ibid., p. 213, para. 68. 203 Eur. Court HR, Case of Gradinger v. Austria, judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A, No. 328-C, p. 66, para. 55. 204 Ibid., p. 55, para. 9. 205 Ibid., p. 66, para. 55. 206 Eur. Court HR, Case of Oliveira v. Switzerland, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, p. 1994, para. 10; emphasis added. 207 Ibid., paras. 11-12; emphasis added. 208 Ibid., p. 1996, para. 22. 209 Ibid., p. 1998, para. 26. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 299