The owners of cars caught by speed cameras can be prosecuted if they fail to tell police who was driving at the time, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has ruled.

Two British drivers lost appeals against speeding convictions after judges decided they did not have the right to remain silent.

The ruling was greeted with relief by police, who feared the two million camera tickets issued each year would be unenforceable if the pair had won.

The judges in Strasbourg decided by 15 to 2 that the two drivers did not have their human rights breached.

Idris Francis, 67, from Petersfield, Hampshire, and Gerard O’Halloran, from London, claimed forcing car owners to reveal who was behind the wheel after a speed camera offence breached their human rights.

Mr Francis, whose 1938 Alvis was photographed doing 47mph in a 30mph zone, said: “This is a perverse decision and I am shocked and amazed.”

Both men were convicted of speed camera offences, with Mr Francis refusing on the ground of the right to silence to say whether he had actually been behind the wheel.

Mr O’Halloran’s car had been caught on camera doing 69mph on the M11 where a temporary speed restriction of 40mph was in force. He did admit being the driver but later invoked his right to silence and protection from self-incrimination. But magistrates refused to exclude his confession and fined him and ordered three penalty points on his licence.

The two drivers had challenged section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which requires a vehicle’s registered keeper to say who was driving when it was caught by a speed camera.

Drivers who are prosecuted under section 172 not only incur penalty points but tend to pay much higher fines than if they had admitted speeding.

Mr Francis refused to say who was driving the car and was fined £750 with £250 costs and three penalty points.

Judges in Strasbourg heard the cases of the two men last September and gave their verdict today.

Mr Francis said after the verdict: “The fight for freedom goes on. We can’t allow the tyrants, who are taking away our rights, to succeed. They have to be stopped.”

The two motorists lost their case because the human rights judges threw out their claim that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are “absolute rights”.

The judges also disagreed that human rights were breached by direct compulsion requiring an accused person to make incriminatory statements against his or her will.

There was no “single, unvarying” rule under the human rights code that determined what constituted a fair trial.

The judges acknowledged that both men had faced direct compulsion to provide information. But the judgment went on to say that because the possession and use of cars was recognised to have the potential to cause grave injury, “those who choose to keep and drive cars could be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities and obligations . . . [including] the obligation, in the event of suspected road traffic offences, to inform the authorities of the identity of the driver”.

The legal compulsion on motorists applied only where the driver was alleged to have committed an offence and the police were authorised to demand information only “as to the identity of the driver”.

The AA welcomed the ruling, saying: “While all systems used for remote enforcement have disadvantages, we are not sure that any of the other methods used around the world are better or fairer.” The Department for Transport said: “The Government welcomes today’s ruling, which confirms that certain responsibilities come with owning or driving a car, including the obligation to inform the authorities of a driver's identity in the event of a suspected offence. Similar provisions have existed in UK law since the 1930s.”