4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Stephanskirchen. 5.  On 25 March 2000 the applicant, driving on the A1 motorway in the direction of Linz, was stopped by a traffic patrol. The officers noted that he had been driving at 200 km/h, thus exceeding the speed limit of 130 km/h by 70 km/h, and that he had kept driving in the left-hand lane, in breach of the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, they observed that, despite the good visibility, the applicant had switched on his fog-lights, and that he had failed to present his driving licence when they had requested him to do so. 6.  Subsequently, on 27 April 2000 the Amstetten District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) requested the applicant to comment on the above charges. 7.  On 15 May 2000 the applicant filed his defence. He stated that he had been in a rush, since his passenger was sick and he wanted to take him home as fast as possible. Furthermore, he claimed that he had been driving at a maximum of 160 km/h. In addition, he submitted that he had been constantly overtaking cars, which was why he had been driving in the left-hand lane. The applicant contended that he had not used any fog-lights. 8.  In a decision of 5 October 2000 the Amstetten District Authority convicted the applicant of four traffic offences, namely speeding, breaching the requirement to drive in the right-hand lane, unjustified use of fog-lights and failure to carry his driving licence with him, and imposed fines amounting in total to 7,000 Austrian schillings (508.71 euros) on him, with 236 hours’ imprisonment in default. Moreover, it ordered him to pay procedural costs. 9.  Repeating his defence, the applicant, on 2 November 2000, lodged an appeal as regards the first three offences with the Lower Austria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat). He did not appeal against his conviction for failure to carry a driving licence with him. He did not request a hearing. 10.  On 28 May 2001 the Independent Administrative Panel, sitting in camera, dismissed the appeal. It stated that two police officers had been following the applicant over a stretch of more than 1,000 metres and had made consistent statements on the event. 11.  On 24 July 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). He alleged in particular that the Independent Administrative Panel had failed to hold a hearing. This would have allowed it to examine his passenger and the police officers and, if need be, to obtain an expert opinion. Furthermore he repeated his defence as regards the charges of speeding and driving in the left-hand lane. As to the alleged use of fog-lights, the applicant presumed that they had possibly been mixed up with his xenon lamps. 12.  At the Administrative Court’s request, the applicant submitted a second copy of his complaint on 14 August 2001. 13.  On 20 November 2001 the Independent Administrative Panel filed its observations on the case. It stated that the applicant had failed to request a hearing. Nor had he applied for the examination of a witness or the production of an expert opinion. 14.  On 16 January 2002, the applicant supplemented his complaint. He asserted, in particular, that an oral hearing had to be held even if he had not expressly requested one. 15.  In an order of 29 January 2002 the Independent Administrative Panel was requested to submit the file. On 27 February 2002 it informed the Administrative Court that the file was missing. At the same time it submitted a statement in reply. The applicant made further submissions on 19 March 2002. 16.  On 23 July 2004 the Administrative Court partly quashed the Independent Administrative Panel’s decision. It
(a)  upheld the conviction as regards speeding but quashed the sentence relating to this offence;
(b)  quashed the conviction and sentence as to the unjustified use of broad-beam lamps; and
(c)  refused to deal with the complaint relating to the conviction for breaching the requirement to drive in the right-hand lane pursuant to section 33a of the Administrative Court Act.
In respect of the first two offences the Administrative Court remitted the case to the Independent Administrative Panel, holding that the latter was obliged to hold a hearing, since none of the exceptions set out in section 51e of the Administrative Offences Act (Verwaltungsstrafgesetz), which regulates the question of oral hearings, had been present. The Administrative Court’s judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 24 August 2004. 17.  On 7 September 2004 the Independent Administrative Panel issued a summons for a hearing on 30 September 2004. 18.  On that date the Independent Administrative Panel heard the two police officers as witnesses. The applicant had asked to be excused. 19.  On 3 November 2004, following a further excuse by the applicant’s counsel, the Independent Administrative Panel scheduled another hearing for 29 November 2004. 20.  In a letter of 26 November 2004 counsel notified the Independent Administrative Panel that, since he was unable to contact the applicant, neither he nor his client would attend the hearing. The hearing was held on 29 November 2004 in the absence of the defence. 21.  On 13 December 2004 the Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 30 December 2004. 22.  The applicant did not lodge a complaint with the Administrative Court or the Constitutional Court.