On September 9, with ruling no. 906/19, the European Court of Justice ruled on violations concerning irregularities in the use of tachographs on vehicles used for the transport of persons.
Tachograph penalties: driving times and hours, rest, and interruptions
The European body, primarily, confirmed the possibility, under art. 19 Reg. 561/2006, to penalize drivers for a violation committed in another Member State. The novelty lies instead in the limitation of the subject matter of control regarding tachograph penalties. Now only driving times and hours, rest, and interruptions are subject to penalties. According to the Court, therefore, all violations penalized in a State different from that of commission are not subject to penalties unless they concern the Regulation 561 of 2006.
The question arises from the specific wording of the aforementioned art. 19 which, in paragraph 2, states:
“A member state authorizes the competent authorities to impose a penalty on a company and/or a driver for a violation of this regulation detected on its territory and for which a penalty has not already been imposed, even if the violation was committed in the territory of another member state or a third country”.
Rightly, the Court emphasizes that, as currently formulated, the text with the expression “of this regulation” can only refer to Reg. 561/2006. This means that the scope of the violations subject to penalties under Article 19 paragraph 2 is only that related to the subject matter addressed by the aforementioned regulation and that is driving periods, breaks, and rest periods. No reference is made to the texts governing the use of the tachograph, namely first Reg. 3821/85 and then Reg. 165/2014.
The text of the judgment:
To be precise, the Court wrote:
“… the fact that said Article 19 refers, in paragraphs 1 and 4, to violations of regulations no. 561/2006 and 3821/85, while paragraph 2 refers only to violations of regulation no. 561/2006, confirms that this latter paragraph cannot be interpreted as a reference to violations of regulation no. 3821/85.”
The Court therefore concluded, as currently formulated, for an inevitable exclusion of violations from regulation 165/2014 among those subject to penalties even in a state different from that of the violation. More precisely, it was stated in the judgment:
“Article 19, paragraph 2, of Regulation No. 561/2006 must be interpreted as prohibiting the competent authorities of a Member State from imposing a penalty on the driver of a vehicle or on a transport company for an infringement of Regulation No. 3821/85, as amended by Regulation No. 561/2006, committed in the territory of another Member State or a third country but established in its territory and that has not already resulted in a penalty.”.
Important clarification:
The European Court of Justice has nonetheless wanted to make an important clarification. This interpretation is to be accepted only as the only one that allows for compliance with the principle of legality. At the current state of Union law, interpreting the rule differently would undermine the certainty of law. It is therefore very clearly perceived as an invitation for legislative intervention, the only subject that can intervene without violating the aforementioned fundamental principle.
It will be interesting to observe now the effects, within the various national legislations and judicial systems, of this ruling.