Despite the partial acceptance of the requests put forward by haulage associations, the application of the EU Mobility Package to international road transport is proving highly complex. Alongside inspections and penalties, Europe has also seen a rise in systematic legal disputes initiated by transport companies. Fines are no longer viewed as a deterrent but as a preliminary step towards court proceedings or, more simply, as a calculated risk. As a result, many haulage firms now prefer to defend themselves before a judge rather than comply with the rules. The latest case to make headlines in France is a clear illustration of this trend.
The case concerns a Spanish company fined €4,000 after a Ukrainian driver spent 57 consecutive days outside the country without documented return. The Mobility Package requires transport companies to organise drivers’ return to their place of residence or operational base every four weeks in order to comply with weekly rest rules, expressly prohibiting rest periods being spent in the cab. The penalty imposed by the Dreal was challenged before the Tribunal of Foix, a town about 90 kilometres south of Toulouse, on the basis of a legal loophole open to differing interpretations. In practice, the legislation does not require the employer to guarantee the driver’s return, but only to demonstrate that it has offered it. A subtle distinction, but a decisive one.
This ambiguity has been openly acknowledged by Dreal inspectors themselves in an interview with the French portal Les Routiers: “The text of the Mobility Package leaves room for different interpretations, many fines have been cancelled. The company only has to demonstrate that it has put measures in place to allow the return.” In this context, even a simple SMS in which the driver refuses to return can be used by the company as a defensive argument in court. In such cases, proving that the employer has exerted undue pressure on the driver becomes extremely difficult for inspectors and, as a result, many penalties are overturned.
According to Dreal inspectors, the systematic use of appeals has spread mainly among those operators whose business model is based on drivers spending long periods in the cab and on constant pressure to maximise productivity. These companies, the inspectors explain, almost automatically challenge every sanction, relying on specialised law firms or in-house legal experts, while continuing to operate outside the law. Strengthening legal departments, hiring consultants and coordinating appeals represent a clear and easily predictable budget item for companies, unlike the increase in operating costs required to fully comply with the Mobility Package.
More frequent returns mean more kilometres travelled and more fuel consumed, greater vehicle wear and tear, more driver changes and less productive assets, all of which have a significant impact on margins. By contrast, legal action is regarded as a calculated and budgeted risk. The Mobility Package therefore risks being transformed from an instrument of social protection into a legal battleground, where success goes not to those who apply the rules most faithfully, but to those who are best able to exploit their ambiguities, gaining a competitive advantage over rivals who instead operate in compliance with EU regulations.
Marco Martinelli
