The Justice of the Peace of Bergamo, canceling a report from the local police, has changed direction clarifying that it is not sufficient to ascertain the absence of periods attributed to “Other activities” to constitute a violation.
THE CASE: ABSENCE OF “OTHER ACTIVITIES”
Following a roadside check, a driver had been fined for not using the activity selector of the tachograph in the 28 days checked, not declaring work periods other than driving. According to the officers, this constituted a violation of the regulations regarding tachographs and they consequently penalized the mere absence of said periods.
THE RULING
The Justice of the Peace of Bergamo has clarified that this is not admissible. The contestation is in fact defined as “absolutely generic” and the judging authority specifically states:
it is not enough to say that the driver “failed to switch to other work or availability the times of loading and unloading goods” but it is also necessary to specify what this violation consisted of, while the officers did not prove in any way what activity, other than driving, the driver would have performed.
The significant novelty is that through this ruling it is established that the mere absence of activities recorded as “other activities” does not in itself constitute an infringement.
Not having provided certain proof, the driver's responsibility cannot be said to be demonstrated, and the contestation therefore appears imprecise and superficial. On these grounds, the Judge deemed the contestation completely flawed and the fine was ultimately annulled.