# C_2019172EN.01000801.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich (Austria) lodged on 8 February 2019 — VO v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln

(Case C-96/19)

(2019/C 172/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VO

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 (1), in particular the last sentence of Article 34(3) and Article 36(2) thereof, be interpreted as precluding national rules which require drivers of vehicles fitted with a digital tachograph within the meaning of Article 2(2)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 to keep on board and produce, during controls, confirmations by the employer, which must fulfil the minimum requirements of the form drawn up by the Commission in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2006/22/EC (2),for individual working days which are missing from the driver card (Article 2(2)(f) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014), but for which no record sheets need be kept on board? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 (1), in particular the last sentence of Article 34(3) and Article 36(2) thereof, be interpreted as precluding national rules which require drivers of vehicles fitted with a digital tachograph within the meaning of Article 2(2)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 to keep on board and produce, during controls, confirmations by the employer, which must fulfil the minimum requirements of the form drawn up by the Commission in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2006/22/EC (2),for individual working days which are missing from the driver card (Article 2(2)(f) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014), but for which no record sheets need be kept on board?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
  Is the form laid down by the Commission in its Decision 2009/959/EU (3) wholly or partially invalid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

Is the form laid down by the Commission in its Decision 2009/959/EU (3) wholly or partially invalid?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35).

(3)  Commission Decision of 14 December 2009 amending Decision 2007/230/EC on a form concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities (notified under document C(2009) 9895) (OJ 2009 L 330, p. 80).

---