Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2023:332
Date: 2023-04-20
Language of the case: Latvian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Latvia

Summary C-619/22 – 1 
Case C-619/22 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
27 September 2022 
Referring court: 
Zemgales rajona tiesa (Latvia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
20 September 2022 
Applicant: 
SIA Sinda & V R 
Defendant: 
Rīgas domes Satiksmes departaments (Traffic Department, 
Municipality of Riga) 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-619/22 
 
2  
 
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action brought against the decisions adopted by the Rīgas domes Satiksmes 
departaments (Traffic Department, Municipality of Riga) in administrative penalty 
proceedings concerning offences under Article 54(3) and (19) of the 
Autopārvadājumu likums (Law on Road Transport), in particular individually 
exceeding the permissible load for axles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of a vehicle, and exceeding 
the maximum authorised mass for the vehicle as a whole. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
On the basis of Article 267 TFEU, the referring court asks whether national 
legislation which provides that, in cases where a road transport operation is 
carried out in excess of the permissible axle load laid down for a vehicle, 
administrative penalty proceedings are to be instituted and a penalty is to be 
imposed not only for each axle the [permissible] load for which has been 
individually exceeded but also for exceeding the permissible laden weight or 
maximum authorised mass as a result of such overloading, and that that penalty is 
to be imposed not only on the driver of the vehicle who committed the offence, 
but also on the carrier or consignor, but which does not specify in what way the 
conduct of the latter is culpable, respects the principle of proportionality 
established in Article 10e of Directive 96/53/EC, as amended by Directive 
2015/719, and the non bis in idem principle. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1) Must legislation which provides that, where a road transport operation is 
carried out in excess of the permissible axle load laid down for a vehicle, 
administrative penalty proceedings are to be instituted and a penalty is to be 
imposed individually for each axle whose [permissible] load has been exceeded, 
irrespective of the number of axles or whether the axles are grouped together, be 
regarded as being consistent with the principle of proportionality set out in 
Article 10e of Directive (EU) 2015/719 of 29 June 2015 amending Council 
Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the 
Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international 
traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic? 
2) Must legislation which provides that a penalty is to be imposed, not only for 
failure to comply with the permissible axle load for a vehicle, but also for 
exceeding the permissible laden weight or maximum authorised mass as a result 
of such overloading, where both offences are established at the same time, be 
regarded as being consistent with the aforementioned principle of proportionality 
and the non bis in idem principle? 
SINDA & V R 
 
3 
3) Must legislation which provides for the imposition of a penalty, not only on 
the driver of a vehicle who has failed to comply with the permissible axle load for 
that vehicle and exceeded its permissible laden weight or maximum authorised 
mass, but also on the carrier or consignor of the goods, but which does not 
determine the conduct that the latter persons must fail to comply with for liability 
to arise, be regarded as being consistent with the aforementioned principle of 
proportionality and the non bis in idem principle? 
Provisions of international law 
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms. 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles 
circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national 
and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international 
traffic, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/719 of 29 April 2015. 
Case-law of the Court of Justice 
Judgment of 4 October 2018, C-384/17, EU:C:2018:810 
Provisions of national law relied on 
1) 1995. gada 23. augusta Autopārvadājumu likums (Law on Road Transport of 
23 August 1995), as amended on 17 June 2020, Article 54(3), (17), (18) and (19). 
In accordance with Article 54(3) of the aforementioned Law, a fine of between 28 
and 56 penalty units is to be imposed on the driver of the vehicle and of between 
86 and 140 penalty units on the carrier for exceeding the laden weight or 
maximum authorised mass for a vehicle or combination of vehicles whose laden 
weight exceeds 12 tonnes. 
In accordance with Article 54(17) to (19), the following penalties are to be 
imposed for carrying out road transport operations which exceed the permissible 
axle load laid down for a vehicle: 
For the driver of the vehicle: 
– if [the permissible axle load] is exceeded by 5 to 10%, the fine must be 
between 14 and 36 penalty units; 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-619/22 
 
4  
– if it is exceeded by 10 to 20%, the fine must be between 36 and 56 penalty 
units; 
– if it is exceeded by 20% or more, the fine must be between 56 and 140 penalty 
units; 
For the carrier: 
– if [the permissible axle load] is exceeded by 5 to 10%, the fine must be 
between 114 and 280 penalty units; 
– if it is exceeded by 10 to 20%, the fine must be between 280 and 460 penalty 
units; 
– if it is exceeded by 20% or more, the fine must be between 460 and 1140 
penalty units; 
or for the consignor: 
– if [the permissible axle load] is exceeded by 5 to 10%, the fine must be, in the 
case of a natural person, between 28 and 70 penalty units, and, in the case of a 
legal person, between 114 and 280 penalty units; 
– if it is exceeded by 10 to 20%, the fine must be, in the case of a natural person, 
between 70 and 114 penalty units, and, in the case of a legal person, between 
280 and 460 penalty units; 
– if it is exceeded by 20% or more, the fine must be, in the case of a natural 
person, between 114 and 140 penalty units, and, in the case of a legal person, 
between 460 and 1140 penalty units. 
2) Administratīvās atbildības likums (Law on Administrative Liability), 
Article 22(2). 
3) Ministru kabineta 2015. gada 2. jūnija noteikumi Nr. 279 ‘Ceļu satiksmes 
noteikumi’ (Council of Ministers Decree No 279 of 2 June 2015 [approving] the 
Traffic Regulation), paragraph 190. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 17 September 2021, inspectors from the Rīgas domes Satiksmes departamenta 
Pasažieru pārvadājumu pārvaldes Kontroles dienests (Inspection Service, 
Passenger Transport Administration, Traffic Department, Municipality of Riga) 
(‘the Inspection Service’) found, after examining the documents required for the 
performance of commercial transport operations and weighing the vehicles in 
question, that the maximum authorised mass for the vehicle (including trailer) 
used to transport goods on the applicant’s behalf had been exceeded by the 
following percentages: 35.2% in the case of axle 2 of the vehicle, 35.25% in the 
SINDA & V R 
 
5 
case of axle 3, 31% in the case of axle 4, 26.75% in the case of axle 5, and 30.45% 
in the case of the maximum authorised mass for the vehicle as a whole. 
2 The Inspection Service instituted separate administrative penalty proceedings for 
each individual exceeding of the permissible axle load of the vehicle and for 
exceeding the maximum authorised mass for the vehicle as a whole, and, by 
means of decisions in each case, fined the carrier EUR 2 300 for exceeding the 
permissible load for each of the four axles and EUR 430 for exceeding the 
maximum authorised mass for the vehicle itself. 
3 The applicant challenged those decisions by lodging administrative appeals with 
the Inspection Service, which, on 17 December 2021, dismissed the appeals and 
confirmed the aforementioned decisions. 
4 The applicant appealed against the decisions of the Inspection Service of 
17 December 2021 to the Zemgales rajona tiesa (District Court, Zemgale), the 
referring court. 
5 All of the administrative penalty proceedings were consolidated into a single set 
of proceedings. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 The applicant considers that the decisions of the Inspection Service are contrary to 
European Union law, since, in its view, the penalties imposed on it are manifestly 
disproportionate. 
7 The applicant relies on Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down 
for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum 
authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum 
authorised weights in international traffic, as amended by Directive (EU) 
2015/719 of 29 April 2015, and recalls that, in accordance with the corresponding 
amendments made to Article 10e of that directive, Member States must establish a 
scheme of effective, non-discriminatory, proportionate and dissuasive penalties 
applicable to infringements of that directive. 
8 According to the applicant, the penalties at issue in the dispute in the main 
proceedings are not proportionate. In this regard, it carries out an extensive 
analysis of the requirement of proportionality, referring in particular to the 
judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 October 2018 in Case C-384/17, 
Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the 
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. 
9 From the interpretation which the Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court) gives of 
the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme (Latvian Constitution), 
according to which the expression ‘in accordance with the law’ includes not only 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-619/22 
 
6  
the presumption of innocence but also other legal principles, the applicant infers 
that that provision also includes the non bis in idem principle and adds that that 
principle forms part of the right to a fair trial. 
10 It therefore argues that the contested provisions are incompatible not only with 
Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights 
and Fundamental Freedoms but also with the second sentence of Article 92 of the 
[Latvian] Constitution. 
11 The applicant further submits that the Directive does not prescribe how penalties 
are to be laid down or refer to any other clear criterion for evaluating their 
proportionality. 
12 It considers that the Directive imposes on Member States an obligation to achieve 
the result provided for in it and that that obligation applies to all authorities in 
Member States, including the courts. 
13 It further submits that, in order to comply with that obligation, the principle that 
national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law requires that the 
national courts, taking into consideration the totality of their domestic law and 
applying the methods of interpretation recognised by that law, do everything 
within their jurisdiction to guarantee the full effectiveness of EU law and to 
achieve an outcome consistent with its purpose. 
14 The defendant argues that there has not been a double penalty, since the 
legislature has clearly defined who is liable to be fined for the administrative 
offence in question, namely, the driver of the vehicle and the carrier. In its view, 
the legislature also starts from the presumption that each of those liable for the 
administrative offence plays a different role in the commission of that offence 
and, for that reason, the legislature provides for a different penalty for each of 
them. 
15 According to the defendant, the decisions in question were adopted in accordance 
with the current legal framework and the fines were imposed in the minimum 
amount provided for by law. 
16 It submits that there is no uniform case-law on the examination of cases relating to 
offences under Article 54(3) and (19) of the Law on Road Transport and that those 
provisions are interpreted and applied differently from one case to another. 
17 In its view, the question whether exceeding the maximum authorised mass for a 
vehicle (its gross weight) may alone be the direct cause of the overloading of that 
vehicle’s axle bridge is debatable. It is therefore necessary to determine whether a 
finding that the maximum authorised mass for a vehicle has been exceeded is to 
be regarded as a single administrative offence, and whether the penalty for vehicle 
axle overloading is for that reason not to be applied. 
SINDA & V R 
 
7 
18 It considers that a schematic and teleological interpretation of the relevant 
legislation, in particular Article 54 of the Law on Road Transport, leads to the 
conclusion that exceeding the maximum authorised mass for a vehicle and vehicle 
axle overloading must be regarded as separate administrative offences. The 
legislature based the amount of the administrative penalties on the type of risk 
involved: in particular, exceeding the maximum authorised mass for a vehicle 
causes damage to the road surface and makes the vehicle difficult to drive, 
whereas overloading the axles on the vehicle represents a serious risk to life and 
health. 
19 In the defendant’s view, a single act of infraction consisting in failing to comply 
with the provisions relating to the authorised mass for the transport of goods by 
road comprises a number of administrative offences, namely exceeding the 
maximum authorised mass for the vehicle in question and [exceeding] the 
permissible load for several of the axles on the vehicle, each one of which 
offences constitutes a separate risk, irrespective of the other offences. In its view, 
this is perfectly consistent with the provisions of the second paragraph of 
Article 22 of the Law on Administrative Liability, which states that, where a 
single act gives rise to a number of administrative offences, one administrative 
penalty per offence must be imposed. 
20 The defendant has consulted the Satiksmes ministrija (Ministry of Transport), 
which refers to an opinion issued by the National Police. That report states that 
neither the Traffic Regulation nor any other provision specifically lays down the 
[permissible] load for each axle on two-axle and three-axle bridges. Rather, it is 
the [permissible] sum of the load for the axles on the bridge which is laid down. 
Administrative liability for failure to comply with those dimensions is provided 
for only in Article 54 of the Law on Road Transport. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling  
21 In accordance with the applicant’s proposal for the making of a reference for a 
preliminary ruling, with which the defendant concurs, and in the light of the 
referring court’s doubts with respect to the conformity of Article 54(3) and (19) of 
the Law on Road Transport with the general principles of EU law, in particular 
with the principle of proportionality, laid down, inter alia, in Article 10e of 
Directive 96/53/EC, as amended by Directive 2015/719, and with the non bis in 
idem principle, a request is made to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling 
under Article 267 TFEU. 
22 In the absence of any uniform practice in the application of those provisions of 
national law, in circumstances in which a penalty is imposed both for exceeding 
the permissible load for each axle individually and for exceeding the [permissible] 
laden weight or maximum authorised mass, and in which, pursuant to the 
aforementioned provisions, those penalties are imposed both on the driver and on 
the carrier or consignor, the referring court finds it impossible to adopt a fair 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-619/22 
 
8  
decision in the present dispute without an answer to the questions referred for a 
preliminary ruling.