COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PALIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation in 2017-2018 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and of Directive 2002/15/EC on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (30th report from the Commission on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport)
Date: 2021-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, arrangement of working time, drivers, driving period, rest period, road safety, road transport, social legislation, transport statistics

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2021  SWD(2021) 278 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PALIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation in 2017-2018 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and of Directive 2002/15/EC on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities  (30th report from the Commission on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport)   {COM(2021) 610 final}  
 
 
1. Social legislation in road transport – objectives and key provisions 

The  EU  social  rules  in  road  transport  are  established  by  four  interrelated  acts:  Regulation 
(EC)  No  561/2006,  which  establishes  rules  on  driving  times,  breaks  and  rest  periods  for 
professional drivers, Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 on recording equipment in road transport, 
Directive  2002/15/EC,  which  sets  out  complementary  provisions  on  the  organisation  of  the 
working  time  of  persons  performing  mobile  road  transport  activities  and  Directive 
2006/22/EC, which determines minimum requirements for enforcement of these rules. 

Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006,  also  known  as  the  Driving  Time  Regulation,  applies  to 
employed  and  self-employed  drivers  engaged  in  the  carriage  by  road  of  goods  where  the 
maximum permissible mass of the vehicle exceeds 3.5 tonnes and of passengers by vehicles 
carrying more than nine persons including the driver. The maximum weekly driving time of a 
driver should not exceed 56 hours (provided that no more than 90 hours are driven in any two 
consecutive weeks). The total daily driving time should not exceed 9 hours, although twice a 
week it can be extended to 10 hours. Breaks should last for at least 45 minutes (which may be 
separated into a break of 15 minutes followed by 30 minutes) and should be taken not later 
than after 4.5 hours of driving. The daily rest period is determined at the level of minimum 11 
hours, which can be reduced three times a week to 9 hours.  

Regulation  (EU)  No  165/2014  on  tachographs  in  road  transport,  also  known  as  the 
Tachograph Regulation, sets out obligations and requirements in relation to the construction, 
installation, use, testing and control of tachographs used in road transport, in order to verify 
compliance  with  the  provisions  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006.  It  also  aims  at  reducing 
administrative  burden  and  making  fraud  to  the  tachograph  more  difficult.  The  smart 
tachograph  has  to  be  fitted  in  vehicles  registered  for  the  first  time  as  of  15  June  2019.  It 
features a new set of advanced communication capabilities with respect to the current digital 
tachograph,  such  as  satellite  geo-localisation  or  short-range  communication  for  the 
transmission  of  information  to  enforcement  authorities.  Those  communication  capabilities 
broaden  the  areas  of  enforcement  where  the  tachograph  is  applied,  extending  it  to,  for 
instance, the control of cabotage operations or the application of the rules on the posting of 
drivers. 

Directive 2002/15/EC, also known as the “Road Transport Working Time Directive”, applies 
to mobile workers such as drivers, crew and other travelling staff, both with the employment 
or  self-employment  status.  The  Directive  complements  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006  by 
putting in place limitations on the maximum weekly and maximum average weekly working 
time  of  workers  in  the  road  transport  sector  as  well  as  adequate  breaks  and  night  work 
provisions. 

Working  time  is  defined  in  the  Directive  as  time  devoted  to  all  road  transport  activities, 
including  driving,  loading  and  unloading,  assisting  passengers  boarding  and  disembarking 
from  the  vehicle,  cleaning  and  technical  maintenance  and  all  other  work  intended  to  ensure 
the safety of transport operation. Specific time limits are set out in relation to weekly working 
time  (excluding  breaks  and  periods  of  availability)  which  amounts  to  maximum  48  hours  a 
week, which may be extended to 60 hours, provided that over four months, an average of 48 
hours  a  week  is  maintained.  Moreover,  a  limitation  to  10  hours  on  daily  working  time  is 
introduced in case of night work. Each mobile worker is obliged to take a break after working 

1 

 
 
consecutively for 6 hours, which should be at least 30 minutes, if working hours range from 
six to nine hours and at least 45 minutes, if working time equals to more than nine hours.  

Directive  2006/22/EC,  also  called  the  "Enforcement  Directive",  lays  down  rules  to  verify 
compliance  and  ensure  application  of  rules  for  driving  time  and  rest  periods  established  by 
Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006  and  Regulation  (EU)  No  165/2014.  The  Directive  promotes 
harmonised  enforcement  of  the  social  rules  in  road  transport  by  means  of  minimum 
requirements  for the uniform  and effective checks to  be  carried out  by  Member States.  The 
minimum threshold of checks of the total number of days worked by drivers falling under the 
scope of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 is set at 3 % from 
2010.  In  addition,  the  total  number  of  working  days  checked  should  be  carried  out  in  a 
proportional manner for checks at the roadside and at the premises of transport undertakings - 
30  %  and  50  %  respectively.  An  obligation  of  minimum  six  concerted  roadside  checks  per 
year undertaken by two or more enforcement authorities was introduced in order to encourage 
cooperation between Member States.  

At the time of writing this report, Mobility Package I was adopted amending Regulation (EC) 
No 561/2006 and Regulation (EU) 165/20141, and introducing a Lex specialis on posting of 
drivers  in  the  road  transport  sector2.  Taking  into  account  the  date  of  application  of  the  new 
provisions,  the  information  on  their  implementation  will  be  provided  in  the  implementation 
report covering a period 2021-2022.   

This Staff Working Document is accompanying the Report and provides more national figures 
and details as well as updates on other relevant aspects in the field. 

2. Checks 

The  total  number  of  working  days  checked  in  the  EU  continuously  decreased  since  2011-
2012. However, the decrease by -5% in 2017-2018 is less apparent compared to the decrease 
of  around  -13%  in  the  reporting  period  2015-2016.  Nevertheless,  looking  at  the  national 
figures the decrease of working days checked seemed to mainly result from the lower number 
of working days checked reported by France3.  

Overall,  the  majority  of  Member  States  performed  significantly  more  working  days  checks 
than  required.  If  100%  represents  the  minimum  threshold  percentage  of  3%,  then  seven 
Member  States  performed  significantly  more  checks  than  the  threshold:  Austria  (10.1%), 
Latvia  (9.9%),  Bulgaria  (9.6%),  France  (9.4%),  Romania  (9.3%),  Portugal  (9.3%),  and 

1  Regulation  (EU)  2020/1054  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  July  2020  amending 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, 
minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by 
means of tachographs (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 1–16). 
2 Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 laying down specific 
rules  with  respect  to  Directive  96/71/EC  and  Directive  2014/67/EU  for  posting  drivers  in  the  road  transport 
sector  and  amending  Directive  2006/22/EC  as  regards  enforcement  requirements  and  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1024/2012 (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 49–65). 
3 France reported around 4 million less working days checked compared to the last report due to the reduction in 
checks  carried  out  by  the  security  forces  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  and  less  checks  due  to  the  impact  of 
social movements in the last quarter of 2018. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
Germany (9.2%)4. These Member States accounted for around one third of the working days 
checked in the EU (around 43 out of 125 million). Compared to the last report, Portugal and 
Romania  increased  the  number  of  working  days  checked  by  more  than  80%  (from  6.7%  to 
9.3% in Portugal and from 6.9% to 9.3% in Romania). 

Six  Member  States  did  not  meet  the  minimum  threshold,  namely  Denmark  (2.9%),  the 
Netherlands  (1.5%),  Finland  (1.4%),  Ireland  (0.8%),  Greece  (0.7%),  and  Lithuania  (0.2%). 
This is an increase since the last reporting period in which only three Member States did not 
meet the minimum threshold. Great decreases in  the number of working days checked were 
observed in Ireland (-133%, i.e. from 4.8% to 0.8%) and Lithuania (-97%, i.e. from 3.1% to 
0.2%). 

Lithuania  only  included  checks  at  the  roadside,  which  may  explain  partly  the  significant 
overall  decrease.  Ireland  had  a  significant  increase  in  the  number  of  vehicles  subject  to 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 with more than three times as many vehicles compared to the 
last  reporting  period.  Finland  did  not  include  data  from  the  national  police  in  the  standard 
reporting  form,  but  based  on  additional  data  from  the  national  police,  customs  and 
occupational  health  &  safety  authorities,  they  checked  more  than  1.7  million  working  days 
exceeding the 3 % threshold. 

The  Netherlands  applied  "monitoring  based  on  trust",  where  a  number  of  road  transport 
undertakings  have  concluded  an  enforcement  agreement  with  the  Environment  &  Transport 
Inspectorate.  The  agreement  covered  over  2.4  million  days  worked  by  drivers  during  2017-
2018 in addition to the 877,454 working days checked by the Netherlands. By adding these 
figures  together,  the  Netherlands  meet  the  minimum  threshold.  The  Dutch  authorities 
informed the Commission that the continuous development and expansion of the risk analysis 
enables the Dutch inspectorates to focus its efforts on those road transport undertakings whose 
level  of  compliance  is  poor.  Non-compliant  undertakings  will  also  fall  under  specialised 
enforcement subject to rigorously applied corrective procedure. This system will end in 2022 
from  when  the  focus  is  on  having  the  right  technology  to  better  monitor  and  investigate 
drivers digitally onwards.  

Directive  2006/22/EC  also  requires  that  at  least  50%  of  the  total  number  of  working  days 
checked should be done through checks at the premises of undertakings and at least 30% at 
the  roadside.  However,  looking  at  the  number  of  Member  States,  which  have  met  the 
threshold, only the following eight Member States have the required balanced share between 
working  days  checked  at  the  premises  and  at  the  roadside:  Bulgaria  (55%  of  working  days 
checked  at  the  premises),  Cyprus  (59%),  Denmark  (54%),  Estonia  (63%),  Latvia  (60%), 
Luxembourg  (68%),  Malta  (63%),  and  Slovakia  (57%).  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Latvia, 
Luxembourg  and  Slovakia  also  met  the  ratio  in  the  last  reporting  period5.  Yet,  this  is  an 
increase of two Member States compared to the last reporting period. 

The  increasing  trend  continues  very  modestly  for  the  ratio  of  working  days  checked  at  the 
premises with the EU-average  rising to 27% compared to 26% in 2015-2016, 23% in 2013-
2014 and 18% in 2009-2010. The most significant improvements were reported by Denmark 

4 This has changed since last reporting period (2015-2016), when it was France, Germany, Bulgaria, Austria  and 
Latvia. 
5 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovakia met the ratio in 2015-2016. 

3 

 
 
                                                           
(from 39% to 54%) and Estonia (from 49% to 62%). Both Member States now meet the ratio. 
Also  Greece  (from  26%  to  42%)  and  Hungary  (from  13%  to  36%)  made  significant 
improvements  and  are  getting  closer  to  the  50%  ratio.  On  the  other  hand,  the  number  of 
working  days  checked  significantly  decreased  in  Romania  (from  51%  to  17%)  and  they  no 
longer meet the ratio.  

Ireland  (10%)  and  Finland  (2%)  are  the  only  Member  States,  which  have  not  met  the 
threshold  for  roadside  checks  (30%).  In  Ireland,  the  reason  seems  to  be  that  only  few  non-
Irish,  except  British  registered  vehicles,  are  circulating  on  the  Irish  roads.  In  the  case  of 
Finland, this may be explained by the lack of reporting from the national police.  

3.  Checks  compared  to  the  number  of  enforcement  officers  and  equipment  to  analyse 
tachographs 

Based  on  the  number  of  enforcement  officers  reported  by  Member  States,  the  number  of 
control officers involved in checks has slightly increased from 61,503 in 2015-2016 to 61,558 
officers in 2017-20186. The total number of enforcement officers trained to analyse the digital 
tachograph  has  continued  to  decrease  by  9%,  as  well  as  the  units  of  equipment  provided  to 
control officers to analyse the tachograph by 5.5% compared to the last report.  

Table 1: Overview of national enforcement capacity in 2017-2018 per Member State 

Member  
States 

AT 
BE 
BG 
HR 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 
FI 
FR 
DE 
EL 
HU 
IE7 
IT 
LV 
LT 
LU 
MT 
NL 

Control 
officers 
involved in 
checks 
1,150 
3,662 
157 
Not reported 
135 
785 
70 
203 
730 
5,500 
16,420 
3,661 
500 
16 
10,258 
26 
404 
18 
2 
200 

Control officers 
trained to analyse 
the digital 
tachograph 
1,150 
3,518 
157 
Not reported 
9 
785 
70 
91 
450 
5,500 
3,114 
690 
460 
16 
952 
26 
418 
18 
2 
300 

Units of equipment 
provided to control officers 
to analyse the tachograph 

485 
130 
220 
Not reported 
12 
193 
35 
53 
75 
3,500 
2,450 
201 
250 
16 
221 
20 
38 
9 
1 
65 

6 This does not include data from Croatia, who did not report on this subject. 
7 Ireland explained that these figures do not include members of the police force and solely refers to staff from 
the Road Safety Authority. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
PL8 
PT 
RO 
SK 
SL 
ES 
SE 
UK 

Total 

1,208 
14,106 
618 
38 
410 
498 
195 
588 

61,558 

1,123 
1,781 
0 
38 
244 
386 
191 
297 

21,786 

255 
343 
318 
40 
36 
445 
205 
310 

9,677 

4. Roadside checks 

In general, 33% of vehicles checked at the roadside are from another EU country, which is a 
1%  increase  since  2015-2016.  However,  in  some  Member  States  the  percentage  of  vehicles 
from another EU country constitutes more than half: namely Austria (66%), Belgium (57%), 
Denmark  (51%),  France  (61%),  Luxembourg  (67%),  the  UK  (54%),  and  the  Netherlands 
(53%).  These  are  the  same  Member  States  as  named  in  the  2015-2016  report  except  from 
Denmark in which the share increased from 35 to 51%. The geographic location and volume 
of transit operations may in certain Member States play a factor. Member States whose share 
of  checking  vehicles  registered  in  a  non-EU  country  was  the  largest  are  Bulgaria  (27%), 
Croatia (26%), Poland (25%), and Slovenia (22%). A complete overview per Member State 
can be found in Table 2 below. 

Table 2: Share of checked vehicles at the roadside by country of registration 

Member  
States 
AT 
BE 
BG 
HR 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 
FI9 
FR 
DE 
EL 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LV 
LT 
LU 
MT 

Nationals 

30% 
35% 
63% 
62% 
99.7% 
54% 
48% 
85% 
- 
37% 
49% 
82% 
47% 
91% 
85% 
47% 
81% 
31% 
55% 

Non-
nationals 
66% 
57% 
10% 
13% 
0.3% 
41% 
51% 
12% 
- 
61% 
45% 
12% 
42% 
9% 
14% 
38% 
19% 
67% 
45% 

Third  
nationals 
4% 
7% 
27% 
26% 
0% 
5% 
2% 
3% 
- 
2% 
6% 
6% 
12% 
0% 
1% 
15% 
1% 
2% 
0% 

8 Poland explained that these figures do not include police officers involved in roadside checks.  
9 Finland did not report data from the national police, which may distort the data. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                           
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SK 
SL 
ES 
SE 
UK 
EU 
average 

45% 
52% 
94% 
84% 
46% 
33% 
89% 
50% 
43% 

58% 

53% 
22% 
7% 
11% 
47% 
46% 
10% 
47% 
54% 

33% 

3% 
25% 
0% 
5% 
7% 
22% 
0,5% 
3% 
3% 

9% 

5. Roadside checks – type of tachograph 

According to Article 2 of Directive 2006/22/EC, the threshold of minimum checks of number 
of days worked by drivers of vehicles will be raised to 4% once 90% of vehicles checked are 
equipped with a digital tachograph. 

Compared to the last report, the share of vehicles checked at the roadside that were equipped 
with the digital tachograph remained stable at the level of 71%10. There is therefore no base to 
raise the threshold of minimum checks to 4% for the time being. The highest share of digital 
tachograph  (more  than  80%)  was  found  during  roadside  check  in  Austria  (96%),  Denmark 
(96%),  Belgium  (94%),  Luxembourg  (90%),  Slovakia  (91%),  Sweden  (89%),  Netherlands 
(85%),  Spain  (84%),  Germany  (83%),  and  Czech  Republic  (82%).  The  number  of  Member 
States meeting the share of 90% digital tachographs has increased from one11 to five since the 
last reporting period. In contrast, the lowest percentage of digital tachograph was reported in 
Greece (39%) and Cyprus (29%). Table 3 below provides a full overview. 

Table 3: Overview of the number of vehicles stopped for roadside checks by type of tachograph 

Member  
States 
AT 

BE 
BG 
HR 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 
FI12 
FR 
DE 
EL 
HU 
IE 

Analogue  
tachograph 

% 
analogue 

Digital  
tachograph 

% 
digital 

9,835 
5,630 
30,750 
11,601 
3,496 
18,706 
616 
2,423 
- 
154,826 
218,378 
64,482 
23,191 
1,450 

4% 
6% 
20% 
46% 
71% 
18% 
4% 
43% 
- 
23% 
17% 
61% 
27% 
35% 

228,507 
96,512 
122,998 
13,704 
1,421 
84,198 
16,677 
3,152 
- 
508,307 
1,092,739 
42,042 
61,661 
2,638 

96% 
94% 
80% 
54% 
29% 
82% 
96% 
57% 
- 
77% 
83% 
39% 
73% 
65% 

10 This does not include data from Lithuania and Finland due to their incompleteness.  
11 Austria 
12 Data from Finland is not included due to its incompleteness.  

6 

 
 
 
                                                           
IT 
LV 
LT13 
LU 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SK 
SL 
ES 
SE 
UK 
Total 

211,582 
7,523 
- 
513 
8 
3,690 
125,619 
24,264 
143,286 
1,307 
3,953 
57,459 
5,040 
93,237 
1,226,175 

35% 
33% 
- 
10% 
28% 
15% 
32% 
34% 
33% 
9% 
21% 
16% 
11% 
60% 
28% 

393,946 
15,055 
- 
4,671 
21 
20,139 
262,522 
47,690 
295,178 
12,674 
15,098 
304,827 
39,130 
63,259 
3,754,008 

65% 
67% 
- 
90% 
72% 
85% 
68% 
66% 
67% 
91% 
79% 
84% 
89% 
40% 
71% 

6. Checks at the premises 

The total share of working days checked at premises increased by 14% to an EU average of 
40%14.  In  total,  Member  States  checked  around  641,000  drivers  during  2017-2018,  which 
confirms a decreasing trend regarding the amount of drivers checked at  the premises with a 
3% decrease since 2015-2016. The number of drivers checked at the premises decreased in a 
majority  of  the  Member  States,  especially  in  Hungary  (-60%)  and  Luxembourg  (-60%).  In 
Luxembourg,  this  may  be  explained  by  a  43%  decrease  in  the  number  of  undertakings 
checked while in Hungary the number of undertakings checked increased by 87%. However, 
some Member States covered significantly more drivers during their checks at the premises, 
namely  in  Ireland  (+493%),  Greece  (+111%),  and  Germany  (+47%).  In  Ireland,  51%  fewer 
undertakings were checked, but a significant increase in drivers checked is observed. Greece 
checked 293% more undertakings following a significant decrease in the last reporting period, 
while a slight decrease in undertakings checked was observed in Germany in 2017-2018.  

The share of drivers  checked at  the premises  compared to  all drivers controlled at  premises 
and roadside, continued to increase throughout the years with a share of 11% (10% share in 
2015-2016, 9% 2013-2014, 7% in 2011-2013 and 5% in 2009-2010).  

The  offence  rate  per  undertaking  was  extremely  high  in  Latvia  (yet,  decreased  from  553  to 
341 offences per undertaking checked), Poland (increased from 81 to 141 offences), Germany 
(decreased from 65 to 61 offences), Luxembourg (increased from 39 to 48 offences), Sweden 
(decreased from 76 to 40 offences), and Ireland (increased from 30 to 46 offences).  

13 Data from Lithuania is not included due to its incompleteness. 
14 Data from Finland and Lithuania is not included due to incompleteness.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1: Share of working days checked at the premises in 2011-2018  

Overview - Share of working days checked at premises checks

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

T
A

E
B

G
B

R
H

Y
C

Z
C

K
D

I

E F
E

R
F

E
D

L
E

U I
E
H

T
I

V
L

T
L

U
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

K
S

L
S

S
E

E
S

K
U

e
g
a
r
e
v
A
U
E

Share of working days checked at premises checks 2011-2012

Share of working days checked at premises checks 2013-2014

Share of working days checked at premises checks 2015-2016

Share of working days checked at premises checks 2017-2018

7. Offences – detection rate 

Like in the last reporting period, it is almost the same group of Member States who detected 
over 1/5 (81%) of all offences detected. These countries are Germany (29% of total offences), 
Poland  (22%),  Austria  (10%),  France  (5%),  Spain  (5%),  Latvia  (5%),  and  Italy  (5%).  The 
average share of offences detected is around 57% at the roadside and 43% at the premises of 
undertakings, which is stable from the last report. 

Significant disparities continue to exist between Member States15. Almost the same Member 
States are marking the lowest offence rate in the EU: 0.06 in Bulgaria, 0.63 in Hungary, 0.82 
in France, 0.74 in Romania and 0.88 in Belgium, where a large decrease is observed16. Yet, 
they are among the Member States with the highest working days checked in the EU. At the 
same  time,  the  following  Member  States  have  very  high  offence  rates:  18.72  in  Lithuania, 
11.12  in  Latvia,  8.67  in  Cyprus,  7.83  in  Poland,  7.15  in  Austria,  and  5.8217  in  Greece. 
Nevertheless, all the offence rates of these Member States slightly decreased compared to the 
last reporting period except from Poland, Lithuania, and Cyprus where they increased. 

A significant increase in the offence rate can be observed in Cyprus (from 6.29 to 8.67), and 
Poland  (from  6.01  to  7.83),  whereas  a  drop  was  reported  by  Belgium  (from  2.26  to  0.88), 
Greece  (from  8.34  to  5.82),  and  Latvia  (from  16.89  to  11.12)  compared  to  the  last  report. 

15 Data from Finland and Lithuania is not included due to incompleteness.  
16 From 2.26 in the reporting period 2015-2016.  
17 Greece has however only checked 0.7% instead of the 3% of checked working days required. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
Table  4  provides  the  breakdown  of  offences  found  at  the  roadside  and  premises  in  EU 
Member States in 2017-2018. 

Table 4: Breakdown of offences found at the roadside and premises in 2017-2018 

Checks at  Breaks 

Rest 
periods 

Driving 
time 

Roadside 
Premises18 
Total 

15% 
19% 
17% 

27% 
16% 
23% 

18% 
8% 
14% 

Driving 
time 
records 
16% 
40% 
27% 

Recording 
equipment 

17% 
3% 
12% 

Lack/availability 
of  records for 
other work 
8% 
3% 
6% 

Given these discrepancies, the enforcement practices across the EU should be aligned, leading 
to harmonised checks that have similar outcomes. The Commission is currently establishing a 
common training curriculum for EU enforcers to ensure that the training of enforcers in the 
EU adhere to a minimum standard, to ensure that enforcement practices are harmonised, and 
to integrate new elements from Mobility Package I. The European Labour Authority may also 
support Member States’ education and training efforts.  

8. Offences detected at the roadside 

On  average,  57%  of  offences  were  detected  at  the  roadside  in  the  EU,  which  is  stable 
compared  to  58%  in  the  last  report.  The  offence  rates  found  at  the  roadside  across  the  EU 
were  very  diverse.  Compared  to  the  EU  average  of  2.11  offences  per  100  working  days 
checked, offence  rates  are particularly high  in  Greece19 (9.93), Austria (8.37) and  Lithuania 
(10.23),  while  significantly  more  than  the  EU  average  in  Slovakia  (3.97),  Portugal  (3.57), 
Czech Republic (3.53), and Luxembourg (3.51). Very low offence rates at the roadside were 
reported  in  Bulgaria  (0.11),  Belgium  (0.33),  Latvia  (0.36),  Denmark  (0.45)  Hungary  (0.59), 
and  Romania  (0.81).  A  considerable  increase  in  detection  rate  was  observed  in  Lithuania 
(from  2.33  to  10.23),  and  Luxembourg  (1.45  to  3.51),  while  a  decrease  was  observed  in 
Greece (from 11.17 to 9.93), Belgium (1.38 to 0.33), and Poland (3.21 to 2.15).  

In  some  of  the  Member  States,  the  numbers  of  detected  offences  related  to  non-national 
vehicles  prevail,  namely  in  France  (86%),  Luxembourg  (71%),  Austria  (68%),  United 
Kingdom  (66%),  Sweden  (65%),  Bulgaria  (62%),  Denmark  (61%),  and  Malta  (64%).  This 
may be  explained by the fact  that many Member States mentioned above20 performed more 
controls on non-national vehicles.  

9. Offences detected at the premises 

Offence  rates  at  the  premises  of  undertakings  in  the  EU  are  also  significantly  diverging21. 
Several  Member  States  were  well  above  the  EU  average  of  4.35  with  the  highest  detection 
rate in Latvia (18.34), Poland (16.68), Cyprus (13.55), the Netherlands (10.20), and Germany 
(8.94).  This  stands  in  contrast  to  countries  with  a  very  low  detection  rate  such  as  Portugal 
(0)22, Bulgaria (0.02), Greece (0.17), United Kingdom (0.31), Romania (0.40), France (0.49), 

18 Latvia did not provide categorisation of offences at the premises. 
19 Greece has not met the threshold of working days checked. 
20 France, Luxembourg, Austria, United Kingdom and Denmark. 
21 Lithuania is not included, as working days checked at premises were not reported. 
22 Portugal only registered offences at premises for carriage of passengers.   

9 

 
 
 
                                                           
Denmark  (0.53),  Hungary  (0.69),  Austria  (0.76),  and  Spain  (0.83).  These  countries  also 
reported low detection rates in the last report. 

Compared to 2015-2016, there is a significant rise in detection rates in Cyprus (from 10.61 to 
13.55) and Poland (12.04 to 16.68), while rates significantly decreased in Latvia (from 29.27 
to 18.34), Germany (11.27 to 8.94), Luxembourg (6.69 to 4.40), and Italy (5.11 to 3.88). 

10. Categories of infringements detected at roadside  

The  main  types  of  infringements  detected  at  the  roadside  by  Member  States  remained  on 
average relatively similar to the last report in terms of share of the total offences detected at 
the roadside with increases or decreases of no more than 1%.  

Offences on the recording equipment, which comprise offences on incorrect functioning and 
misuse  or  manipulation  of  the  tachograph,  remained  stable  in  2017-2018.  Manipulation  and 
misuse  of  the  tachograph  constituted  the  majority  of  this  category  with  14%  of  the  overall 
offences  (16%  in  2015-2016)  at  the  roadside.  In  Germany  (28%)  and  the  UK  (27%) 
manipulation  and  misuse  even  made  up  around  a  third  of  their  offences  found.  Authorities 
informed  the  Commission  that  tachograph  fraud  and  manipulation  becomes  increasingly 
sophisticated  and  more  difficult  to  detect.  Yet,  the  number  of  digital  tachographs  steadily 
increase with data stored in these, and thus reducing the possibility to conceal or falsify driver 
cards and commit fraud or manipulation, as reported by Slovak authorities.  

Looking at national figures, the detected infringements on driving time were particularly high 
in  Luxembourg  (37%)  and  Finland  (39%),  while  offences  on  breaks  were  high  in  Cyprus 
(significant  increase  from  31%  to  48%),  Ireland  (significant  increase  from  30%  to  47%), 
Sweden  (38%)  and  Slovakia  (35%).  Offences  in  rest  periods  were  significant  in  Belgium 
(43%), Croatia (41%), Malta (43%), Sweden (43%) and Spain (41%). In the Czech Republic 
(47%), Italy (46%) and Latvia (39%), the share of infringements related to driving records is 
significant compared to the majority of Member States. The EU average for infringements of 
providing records for other work is very low in the majority of Member States, but constitutes 
a  greater  share  in  the  Member  States  such  as  Germany  (14%),  Estonia  (14%),  and  Poland 
(12%). 

11. Categories of infringements detected at premises  

Compared to the last report, offences detected at the premises23 of undertakings remain stable 
with a 1% decrease. Yet, the numbers decreased in far most Member States with significant 
decreases reported compared to the last reporting period by Portugal (-96%), United Kingdom 
(79%),  and  Latvia  (63%).  Large  percentage  increases  were  reported  by  Sweden  (240%), 
Greece (195%), Malta (129%), and Poland (70%). Thus, the stable trend is mostly maintained 
based on 253,430 more infringements reported by Poland.   

The  number  of  infringements  detected  regarding  breaks  decreased  from  26%  to  19%,  rest 
periods  from  21%  to  16%,  and  driving  time  from  10%  to  8%.  However,  an  increase  was 
observed related to driving time records (from 33% to 40%), recording equipment and records 
for  other  work  (both  from  3%  to  5%).  An  increasing  number  of  infringements  detected  for 
driving time records, which have to be kept at least for one year by the transport undertakings, 

23 Latvia did not provide a full or no breakdown of total offences at the premises. 

10 

 
 
                                                           
can also be observed since 2013-2014. This offence was significantly noticed at the premises 
of undertakings in Poland (83% of offences detected at premises), Italy (62%), and Hungary 
(46%). Italian authorities previously explained that the low fines for missing driving records 
would encourage drivers and operators to claim that they are not in possession of driving time 
records rather than risking to be fined for other offences that are subject to significantly higher 
fines.  

A  high  number  of  driving  time  offences  was  detected  in  Greece  (52%),  Malta  (50%)24 
Lithuania  (33%),  France  (31%),  and  Portugal  (30%).  Offences  on  breaks  were  frequently 
detected  in  Ireland  (59%),  Denmark  (49%),  Cyprus  (47%),  Finland  (46%),  and  Germany 
(45%).  Infringements  on  rest  periods  constituted  a  great  share  in  Estonia  (56%),  Romania 
(54%), Luxembourg (44%), Slovakia (44%), and Croatia (42%).  

Offences  on  recording  equipment  constituted  3%  and  amounted  to  49,308  in  2017-2018. 
Their national share was particularly high in United Kingdom (54%) and Netherlands (28%). 
Infringements on the lack and availability of records of other work were in particular high in 
Sweden  where  they  constituted  33%  of  the  national  offences  detected  at  the  premises 
(decreased  from  46%).  The  Swedish  authorities  explained  that  the  numbers  reported  were 
higher because infringements related to not using manual input when required to do so were 
included25.  

12. Cooperation between Member States 

According to Directive 2006/22/EC, Member States are obliged to undertake no less than six 
concerted  roadside  checks  per  year  with  at  least  one  other  Member  State.  Eight  Member 
States26 did not provide information on the number of concerted checks, while three others did 
not provide any information about concerted checks at all27. Out of the 17 Member States that 
did provide information on checks, 12 Member States28 met the required number of concerted 
checks  per  year.  Thus,  both  the  number  of  Member  States  providing  data  and  that  met  the 
required number of concerted checks has decreased.  

There  are  irregularities  due  to  the  fragmented  data  submitted.  Some  Member  States  include 
the total amount of concerted checks over a two-year period, which does not make it possible 
to conclude whether these Member States comply with the obligation to organise at least six 
concerted checks per year.  

Most  Member  States  participated  in  concerted  checks  through  the  European  Traffic  Police 
Network (TISPOL) and Euro Control Route (ECR) cooperation.  

Table 5 below presents the number of concerted checks and exchange of experience carried-
out  by  Member  States  in  2017-2018.  It  also  provides  an  overview  of  the  focus  of  these 
concerted  checks  and  exchange  of  experience,  as  well  as  which  Member  States  cooperated. 

24 Out of 16 offences at premises reported. 
25 Reference is made to H16 in the appendix III of Regulation (EU) No 2016/403 
26 Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and Slovakia. 
27 Croatia, Cyprus, and Greece. 
28 Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Spain and UK. 

11 

 
 
                                                           
Some  Member  States  reported  that  concerted  checks  contribute  to  knowledge-sharing,  and 
allows for reviewing and harmonising interpretations of provisions in European legislation29. 

Table 5: Overview of concerted checks per Member States 

Austria 

Concerted checks:  
  6 a year, ECR/TIPSOL Member States. 

Exchange of experience and data:  
  5 bilateral, 3 multilateral exchanges about driving time checks, 

manipulation of recording equipment, technical checks, securing of loads 
with ECR/TIPSOL Member States. 

Belgium 

Concerted checks: 
2017: 
  5 concerted checks with ECR member countries. 

2018: 
  7 concerted checks with ECR member countries. 

Bulgaria 

Exchange of information and experience in 2017-2018: 
  Sharing of information and good practices within ECR 
2017: 
Concerted checks:  
  2 joint checks with Romanian control bodies (ARR) in Romania and 

Bulgaria. 

Exchange of information: 
  Exchange of information on detected violations committed by Bulgarian 
drivers in Germany, Hungary, Austria, Spain, United Kingdom, Italy, 
Latvia, Romania and Slovenia. 

2018: 
Concerted checks:  
  2 joint checks with Romanian control bodies (ARR) in Romania and 

Bulgaria. 

Exchange of information and experience: 
  Exchange of information on detected violations committed by Bulgarian 
drivers in Germany, Hungary, Austria, Spain, United Kingdom, Italy, 
Latvia, Romania and Slovenia. 

No information provided 
No information provided 
2017: 
Concerted checks: 
  16 joint international controls of which 6 were hosted in Czech Republic. 
The controls were completed with Germany, Slovakia, Austria, and 
Slovenia. 

12 

Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech 
Republic 

29 Slovakia. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Exchange of experience and information: 
  Participation in 7 exchanges of which 1 was in Czech Republic. The 
exchanges were with Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Belgium, the 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom. 

2018: 
Concerted checks:  
  8 joint international controls of which 3 were hosted in Czech Republic. 

The controls were completed with Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia 
and Ukraine. 

Exchange of experience and information: 
  Participation in 10 exchanges with Germany, Slovakia, Belgium, 

Netherlands and the United Kingdom. 

Denmark 

Concerted checks in 2017-2018: 
  The National Police participated in the concerted checks arranged by 

TISPOL. 

  The Danish Police also held joint controls with Germany. 
  The Danish Police held 10 heavy vehicle controls with Swedish 

authorities. 

Estonia 

Finland 
France 

Exchange of experience and information: 
  The National Police exchanges information concerning inspection 

procedures, data, etc., with other Member States upon request. It also asks 
other Member States about their inspection procedures, etc., when needed. 

Concerted checks: 
2017: 
  2 common roadside checks with the Latvian enforcement authorities and 

with the Finnish Police. 

2018:  
  2 common roadside checks with the Latvian enforcement authorities and 

with the Finnish Police. 

Exchange of experience: 
  Participation in the International and national conference (5. IERFA 2017) 
on “social rules in road transport” at Oberwolfach, Germany in  March 
2017. 

  Participation in the International and national conference (6. IERFA 2018) 
on “social rules in road transport” at Oberwolfach, Germany in March 
2018. 

  Participation in ECR training in Germany in June 2018. 
No information provided 
Concerted checks in 2017-2018: 
Every year, within the framework of the ECR, coordinated monitoring weeks 
with specific topics are organised. 
In 2017 and 2018, the 14 weeks of coordinated checks alternated between:  
  Tachograph fraud and anti-pollution devices (3 periods) 
13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Technical roadside inspection 
  Transport of dangerous goods 
  Passenger transport 
France participated in all weeks of planned inspections. 
Exchange of experience and information in 2017-18: 
  2 bilateral cooperation sessions with Germany. 
  2 multilateral cooperation and multilateral exchange sessions of ECR. 
  3 sessions organised by the Netherlands (Leiden in 2017), Poland 

(Bydgoszcz in 2018) and the United Kingdom (Cardington in 2018). 

  2  training sessions on tachograph fraud organised by TISPOL. 
  The ‘tchy work group’ (TWG) and the ADR working group on the 

Germany 

Greece 
Hungary 

transport of dangerous goods. 
Concerted checks in 2017-2018: 
  Total of 63 joint checks of which 13 involved TISPOL. 
No information provided 
2017-18: 
Concerted checks: 
  11 checks with ECR Members. 
  9 TISPOL inspections. 

Exchange of experience and information: 
  4 TISPOL events.  
  6 bilateral and multilateral events in six cases cooperating with Poland, 

Ireland 

Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania and Croatia. 

2017: 
Concerted checks: 
  8 checks with the United Kingdom & Northern Ireland.  

2018: 
Concerted checks: 
  8 checks with the United Kingdom & Northern Ireland. 

Exchange of experience in 2017-18: 
  4-5 exchanges by ER. 

Italy 

Concerted checks in 2017: 
The Traffic Police participated in the joint European checking and safety 
campaigns on the carriage of goods and passengers and conducted 'thematic' 
campaigns across Europe, as a part of the activities organised by TISPOL.  
As a part of the joint European 'Truck and Bus' campaign, three ‘Truck and 
Bus’ operations were carried out in Italy in 2017, in February, July and 
October, during which 3087 offences were detected relating to driving time, 
rest breaks and the proper functioning of tachographs. 

14 

 
 
  
   
 
Latvia 

Lithuania 

Concerted checks in 2018: 
The Traffic Police, as part of the activities organised by TISPOL, participated 
in joint European checking 10 times, as well as in safety campaigns on the 
carriage of goods and passengers. 
As a part of the joint European 'Truck and Bus' campaign, three ‘Truck and 
Bus’ operations were carried out in Italy in 2018, in February, July and 
October, during which 2780 offences were detected related to driving time, 
rest breaks and the proper functioning of tachographs. 
2017: 
Concerted checks: 
  3 roadside checks with Lithuania. 
  1 road check with Estonia. 

2018:  
Concerted checks: 
  9  roadside checks with Lithuania. 
  1 road check with Estonia.  

Concerted checks in 2017-2018: 
  18 joint vehicle-checking exercises were carried out with officials from 
the Polish and Latvian inspectorates. Joint checks were carried out with 
Polish officials in the Kalvarija (LT) – Budzisko (PL) border zone, and 
with officials from the Latvian inspection body in the Saločiai (LT) – 
Grenctāle (LV), Smėlynė (LT) – Medumi (LV), Obeliai (LT) – Subate 
(LV), Būtingė (LT) – Rucava (LV) and Kalviai (LT) – Meitene (LV) 
border zones. 

Luxembourg  2017: 

Concerted checks: 
  20 checks at Dudelange-Zouffgen (LU-FR).  
  3 Benelux exercises with Belgium and the Netherlands. 
  3 controls near Trier (Markusberg) with Germany. 
  2 other controls with Germany. 

Exchange of experience and information: 
  1 International exchange of experience with Germany. 
  1 ECR Multilateral Exchange with France. 
  2 Master classes with Germany. 

2018: 
Concerted checks: 
  19 inspections at Dudelange-Zouffgen route with France. 
  3 BENELUX exercises with Belgium and the Netherlands. 
  1 operation in Hazeldonk with Belgium and the Netherlands. 
  4 controls near Trier (Markusberg) with Germany. 

Exchange of experience and information: 
  1 Demonstration of roadside check on the transport of dangerous goods 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
with Belgium. 

  1 International Exchange of Experience on social rules for road transport 

with Germany. 

  1 Master Class ADRs with Germany. 
  1 ADR Cross border Enforcement with the Netherlands. 
  1 Manipulation Tacho fraud with Poland. 
  1 ECR HARMONIE ADR Germany. 
  1 Master Class TACHO fraud with Germany. 
No concerted check carried out in the reporting period. 

Malta 

Netherlands  2017: 

Concerted checks: 
  8 Cross-border checks with ECR (6 to 12 participants from Netherlands). 
  3 Benelux checks (6 to 12 participants from the Netherlands). 

Exchange of experience and information: 
  Multilateral exchanges with France (2 participants from the Netherlands) 
and a multilateral exchange in the Netherlands (4 participants from the 
Netherlands). 

  Bilateral exchange with Germany in Germany (6 participants from the 

Netherlands). 

2018: 
Concerted checks: 
  8 Cross-border checks with ECR (6 to 12 participants from Netherlands). 
  3 Benelux checks (6 to 12 participants from the Netherlands). 

Exchange of experience: 
  Multilateral exchanges with France, Poland, UK, and Germany (2 

participants from the Netherlands for all). 

  Bilateral exchange with Germany in the Netherlands (6 participants from 

Poland 

the Netherlands). 

Concerted checks: 
2017: 
  7 concerted inspections organised by ECR. 

2018: 
  7 concerted inspections. 

Exchange of experience and information in 2017-18: 
Poland participated at international exchanges on tachograph fraud, passenger 
transport, secure loading, overloading, social dumping, technical checks of 
vehicles, etc. in both 2017 and 2018. Poland also participated at the Master 
Classes on tachograph, as well training workshops on transport of dangerous 
goods. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Portugal 

Portugal has participated in the relevant meetings organised by the competent 
bodies at Community level. 

Romania 

2017: 
Concerted checks: 
  7 concerted checks organised by ECR in which Member State authorities 
from Austria, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Poland, United Kingdom, 
Ireland, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Germany and Romania 
participated. 

  4 bilateral roadside checks organised with Hungary and Bulgaria. 

Exchange of experience and information: 
  1 multilateral event in France organised by ECR. 
  3 workshops in Belgium organised by ECR. 
  2 workshops on Enforcement in Belgium organised by CORTE. 
  1 master class in Germany. 

2018: 
Concerted checks: 
  7 concerted checks organised by ECR with participants from Belgium, 

Croatia, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Austria, Poland, 
Hungary, United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Czech, 
Slovenia and Romania. 

  4 bilateral roadside checks organised with Hungary and Bulgaria. 

Exchange of experience and information: 
  1 multilateral event in Germany by ECR. 
  6 workshops in Belgium organised by ECR. 
  1 workshop on Enforcement in Belgium organised by CORTE. 
  2 master classes organised in Germany by ECR. 
2017-2018: 
Concerted checks: 
  Joint control actions were carried out with the Czech Republic, Hungary, 
and Poland. The inspectors controlled social legislation in transport with 
the Czech Republic and Poland, and detected tampering with recording 
equipment with Hungary. EU Member States with which Slovakia does 
not share borders have also participated in the joint inspections.  

  Every year in September, the NIP organises three days of international 
monitoring of the social legislation in transport with participation of 
Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, as well as Ukraine. 
Around 30 participants were involved in the international control action 
and carry out checks at two checkpoints. 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

2017-2018: 
Concerted checks: 
  3 concerted checks with Hungary and Croatia in each year. 

Exchange of experience and information: 
  Slovenia has a status of an Active observer in the ECR organisation. In 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2017 and 2018 inspectors participated in Multilateral concerted checks in 
other ECR member countries. 

Spain 

2017: 
  7 ECR coordinated controls. 

2018: 
  7 ECR coordinated controls. 
  3 bilateral roadside checks together with Portugal about driving and rest 

Sweden 

times, overloading and others. 

2017: 
Exchange of experience: 
  DotcomWaste in Rome in September 2017. 
  Collaborated with Norway on Operation Midnight Sun. 
  Exchanges with Finland when needed.  

2018: 
Concerted checks: 
  Joint Nordic check in Norway. 

Impel Waste in Vienna. 

Exchange of experience: 
 
  Tispol Road Policing Seminar in Germany. 
  Operation Midnight Sun with Norway. 
  Visit to Gdansk in Poland. 
  Exchanges with Finland when needed. 
2017: 
Concerted checks: 
  6 checks with ECR members. 

United 
Kingdom 

Exchange of experience and information: 
  The UK hosted a tri-lateral exchange in Chester in October 2017 between 

themselves, Northern Ireland and Ireland. 

2018: 
Concerted checks: 
  7 checks with ECR members. 

Exchange of experience and information: 
  The UK hosted a multi-lateral exchange at Cardington in September 

attended by the Netherlands, Germany, Czech Republic, Belgium, Ireland 
and France. 

13. Penalties 

Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 sets out that Member States shall lay down rules 
on  penalties  that  are  to  be  effective,  proportionate,  dissuasive  and  non-discriminatory. 
Member  States  shall  notify  the  Commission  of  these  measures  and  the  rules  on  penalties. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Member States reported in the area30 and many reported no changes in 2017-201831. For 
the current report, the Commission has been notified of the following: 

Some Member States made changes to legislation to harmonise categories of infringements to 
Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/40332. In this manner, some penalties and categorisations 
of Very Serious Infringements (VSI) and Most Serious Infringements (MSI) were changed in 
e.g. Czech Republic, Denmark, Sweden, and Hungary. 

The Czech Republic reduced the fines imposed and changed the categorisation of offences in 
2017. For example, they impose fines of up to CZK 350,000 (approx. EUR 13,562) based on 
individual assessment of cases for tachograph related infringements.  

Denmark reduced fines to 50 DKK for each time that the limit on driving time is exceeded by 
1% for the driver and twice as much for the company, i.e. DKK 100 for each per cent. There 
is  a  scope  for  further  reduction  of  the  fines  for  infringement  of  Article  7,  when  there  are 
mitigating  circumstances.  The  changes  were  made  on  account  of  the  particular  interplay 
between  driving  times  and  breaks  in  the  article,  which  means  that  taking  break  only  a  few 
minutes  shorter  than  required  can  result  in  the  maximum  driving  time  being  significantly 
exceeded.  Denmark  has  a  graded  fines  system  in  which  the  fee  for  the  driver  must  be 
graduated  with  fees  for  minor  infringements  being  DKK  2,000  and  for  very  serious 
infringements DKK 4,000.  

In  Sweden,  administrative  fees  were  differentiated  in  accordance  with  the  categorisation  in 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/403  and  penalty  fees  were  adjusted.  Additionally,  accumulated 
penalties  regarding  VSI  and  MSI  under  Regulation  (EC)  561/2006  were  introduced  and 
adjusted.  The  maximum  amount  of  penalty  fees  that  can  be  imposed  on  a  company  was 
changed  from  200,000  or  equivalent  to  10%  of  the  company’s  annual  revenue  to  800,000 
SEK or equivalent to 1% of the annual revenue. 

Member States such as Bulgaria, Sweden and Hungary introduced increased penalty fees. The 
Bulgarian  authorities  comment  that  these  increased  sanctions  have  stronger  deterrent  effect, 
leading to a reduction in traffic offenses and an increase in road safety. 

For example in Sweden, the accumulated penalties result in higher sanction fees depending on 
to  what  extent  a  driver  breaks  a  rule.  However,  VSI  and  MSI  have  roughly  the  same  fines, 
since, according to Swedish legislation, no individual driver should receive a fine exceeding 
SEK 10,000.  

Moreover,  Estonia  made  a  number  of  changes  to  legislation  regarding  fines  for  violating 
requirements to tachographs, recording sheets and driver cards. Austria also made changes to 
legislation regarding working and rest times.  

30 Croatia, Germany, Greece, Malta, and Poland. These countries also reported changes: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Sweden 
31 Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, 
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and United Kingdom. 
32 Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/403 of 18 March 2016 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the classification of serious infringements of the 
Union rules, which may lead to the loss of good repute by the road transport operator, and amending Annex III 
to Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

19 

 
 
                                                           
At the time of writing this report, a new Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 has 
been  introduced  with  Mobility  Package  I.  According  to  this  Article,  Member  States  are 
obliged to inform the Commission about changes to penalties, and the Commission is required 
to publish this information on a dedicated website in all official EU languages33.  

33 Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 article 19(1). 

20 

 
 
                                                           
Fig. 2: Offence rate at the roadside and premises checks by Member States in 2011-2018 

TOTAL offences rate (per 100 working days)

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

AT BE BG HR CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE EL HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SK SL ES SE UK

EU
Ave
rag
e

2017-18 7,2 0,9 0,1 1,5 8,7 2,7 0,5 1,9 6,8 0,8 3,5 5,8 0,6 1,8 1,9 11 19 4,1 1,3 3,2 7,8 2,8 0,7 3,9 2,3 1,9 2,7 1,7 2,7

2015-16 7,5 2,2 0,0 1,6 6,2 2,6 0,4 1,9 2,4 0,5 3,9 8,3 0,3 1,3 2,3 16, 1,9 5,0 1,6 3,5 6,0 1,9 0,9 4,2 2,2 1,7 3,5 1,2 2,6

2013-14 7,2 2,6 0,0 1,6 5,3 1,6 0,3 2,4 1,6 0,5 3,9 3,1 0,5 1,5 2,6 0,5 4,0 1,3 3,0 2,4 2,6 1,8 0,3 4,6 1,9 1,8 3,6 1,2 2,1

2011-12 4,5 1,8 0,0

0,6 1,7 0,3 2,7 6,7 0,9 4,0 4,5 3,7 2,9 4,4 0,8 4,3 2,2 4,0 3,0 1,9 1,8 0,3 6,0 4,2 1,5 2,4 1,7 2,4

14. Exceptions granted by Member States 

According  to  Article  13  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006,  Member  States  may  grant 
exceptions  from  the  application  of  provisions  on  driving  times,  breaks  and  rest  periods, 
provided  that  certain  specific  conditions  are  met  and  that  the  overall  objectives  of  the 
Regulation are not prejudiced. Member States are obliged to inform the Commission of the 
exceptions granted.  

The  table  below  illustrates  the  exceptions,  which  have  been  introduced  since  the  entry  into 
force  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006.  The  information  is  also  available  on  the 
Commission's website34.  

34 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/national_exceptions_regulation_2006_561.pdf 

21 

 
 
 
                                                           
National exceptions Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

m
u
i
g
l
e
B

a
i
r
a
g
l
u
B

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

c
i
l
b
u
p
e
R

h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
i
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
l
n
i
F

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

e
c
e
e
r
G

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
i
n
a
u
h
t
i

L

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

a
t
l
a
M

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

a
i
n
e
v
o
l
S

d
n
a
l
o
P

n
i
a
p
S

m
o
d
g
n
i
K

d
e
t
i
n
U

n
e
d
e
w
S

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X1 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X2 

X 

X2 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X2  X2 

X 

X2 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X3 

X 

X 

X 

X4 

X4  X4 

X4 

X4 

X 

X4 

X4 

X 

X4 

X 

X4  X4 

X4  X4 

X4 

X4 

X4 

X 

X4 

X 

X4 

X4 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X5 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X5 

X 

X 

X6 

X6 

X6 

X 

X6 

X6 

X6 

X 

X6 

X 

X6 

X6 

X6 

X 

X6 

X 

X6 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X7 

X 

X 

X7 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X8 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X8 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X9 

X 

X9 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X  X10  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

13.1 a: non-
competing public 
authorities1 
13.1 b: agricultural 
etc. own activity < 
100 km2 
13.1 
c:agricultural/forestry 
tractors <100 km3 
13.1 d: <7,5 tons 
universal services 
<100 km4 
13.1 e: operating on 
islands <2300 square 
km5 
13.1 f: <7,5 t <100 
km gas/ electricity6 
13.1 g:  
instruction/examinati
on driving 
licence/CPC7 
13.1 h: 
sewerage/flood 
protection/water etc8 
13.1 i: non-comm.  
passenger transp. 
between 10-17 seats9 
13.1 j: 
circus/funfair10 
13.1 k: mobile 

22 

 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
projects for education 

13.1 l: milk/animal 
feed from/to farms11 
13.1 m: transporting 
money/ valuables12 
13.1 n: animal waste 
or carcasses13 
13.1 o: hub 
facilities14 
13.1 p: live animals 
farms -> markets and 
vice versa<100km15 

X11  X 

X 

X12  X  X  X 

X 

X 

X 

X  X  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X  X  X11  X  X11  X11 

X 

X  X  X11  X11  X 

X 

X 

X  X12 

X  X 

X  X  X 

X  X 

X 

X 

X 

X  X13 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X  X  X  X  X11  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

X  X 

X14  X 

X  X  X  X  X 

X 

X  X15 

X15  X15  X15  X  X15  X15  X15  X 

X15  X15 

X15  X15  X15  X 

X1
5 

X  X15  X15  X 

X 

X 

X1
5 

X 

X 

X 

1.  The following Member State introduced additional restrictions:  

a.  The United Kingdom: a vehicle does not fall within the description specified unless the vehicle:  

(a) is being used for the provision of ambulance services- (i) by a relevant National Health Service (NHS) body, or (ii) in pursuance of arrangements made by 
or at the request of a relevant NHS body, or made with the Secretary of State or with the Welsh or Scottish Ministers; 
(b) is being used for the transport of organs, blood, equipment, medical supplies or personnel - (i) by a relevant NHS body, or (ii) in pursuance of arrangements 
of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii)  
(c) is being used by a local authority to provide, in exercise of social services functions - (i) services for elderly people, or (ii) services for persons to whom 
section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (welfare arrangement for physically and mentally handicapped persons) applies;    
(d) is being used by Her Majesty's Coastguard, a general lighthouse authority or a local lighthouse authority;  
(e) is being used for the purpose of maintaining railways by the British Railways Board, any holder of a network licence (within the meaning of Part 1 of the 
Railways Act 1993) which is a company wholly owned by the Crown (within the meaning of that Act), Transport for London, any wholly owned subsidiary of 
Transport for London, a Passenger Transport Executive or a local authority  
(f) is being used by the British Waterways Board for the purpose of maintaining navigable waterways  

2.  The following Member States introduced additional restrictions:  

a.  Estonia - within a radius of 50 km of the place where the vehicle is usually based, including towns within this area 
b.  France - only vehicles or combinations of vehicles up to 7,5 tonnes and only within a radius of 50 km 
c.  Slovenia – within a radius of up to 50 km 
d.  Spain – agriculture etc. own activity within a range < 50 km  
e.  The United Kingdom - a vehicle which is being used by a fishery undertaking does not fall within the description specified unless the vehicle is being used: 

(a) to carry live fish, or 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(b) to carry a catch of fish from the place of landing to a place where it is to be processed 

3.  The following Member States introduced additional restrictions: 

a.  Slovenia - within a radius of up to 50 km 

4.  The following Member States introduced additional restrictions: 

a.  Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, 

Slovakia, Spain – within a radius < 50km 

b.  The United Kingdom – vehicles between 3.5 - 7.5 tonnes used by universal service providers within a 50 km radius of the base of the undertaking require a 

tachograph 

5.  The following Member States introduced additional restrictions: 
a.  France - operating on islands <400 square km 
b.  Spain – operating on islands < 250 square km 
6.  The following Member States introduced additional restrictions: 

a.  Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain – within a radius < 50km 

7.  The following Member States introduced additional restrictions: 

Italy - it refers only to the obligation of equipping and using tachograph 

a. 
b.  Luxembourg - exception only for the (learning) driver, instructor must respect Regulation (EC) No 561/20006 

8.  The following Member States introduced additional restrictions: 

a.  Austria: 

(a) vehicles used by the regional authorities’ road construction offices and driven by employees of the provinces or municipalities are entirely exempted 
(b) vehicles used in connection with sewerage, flood protection, water, gas and electricity supply, telegraph and telephone services, radio and television 
broadcasting, and the detection of radio or television transmitters or receivers are entirely exempted where driving of vehicles does not constitute the driver’s 
main activity 
(c) vehicles used by household refuse collection authorities are exempted only from the rules on breaks under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 
(d) vehicles used in winter by road construction offices, where not covered by the exemption under point 9 a.(a), are exempted only from the rules on breaks 
under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006  

b.  France - for door-to-door household refuse collection and disposal, only within a radius of 100 km 

9.  The following Member States introduced additional restrictions: 

a.  Estonia - owner/authorised user of a vehicle with 10-17 seats who is a parent of 4/more children, respective entry made on a registration certificate of the 

vehicle and the vehicle is used for non-commercial passenger transport 

b.  France -  not for the transport of children 

10.  The following Member State introduced additional restrictions: 

a.  Spain - only when own activity 

11.  The following Member States introduced additional restrictions: 

a.  Austria - vehicles used to collect raw milk from farms exempted only from the rules on breaks under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 

24 

 
 
b.  Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as of 1/01/2008, mutually apply the exception from Articles 5 to 9 to vehicles used for milk collection from farms,...etc.,  only 

in cases where the service radius does not exceed 100 km 

c.  France - within a radius of up to 150 km of the base of the undertaking 
d.  Germany – within a radius of 100km 
e.  Spain – milk/animal feed from /to farms within a range < 100 km 

12.  The following Member States introduced additional restrictions: 

a.  Austria – exception only from the rules on breaks under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 
b. 

Ireland - vehicles specially designed for mobile banking, exchange and saving transactions 

13.  The following Member State introduced additional restrictions: 

a.  Germany - within a radius of up to 250 km of the base of the undertaking 

14.  The following Member State introduced additional restrictions: 

a.  The Netherlands – on or between hub facilities within a range of 5 km 

15.  The following Member State introduced additional restrictions: 

a.  Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden 

– within a radius < 50km 

25 

 
 
 
15. Comments and proposals  

A number of Member States provided comments and proposals related to the enforcement of 
the EU road transport social rules.  

Some  Member  States  referred  to  the  training  of  enforcers  at  national  level  with  comments 
from Austria, Portugal, Greece and Italy. Austrian authorities shared the fact that the training 
programme  of  their  Federal  Ministry  of  the  Interior  and  the  Federal  Ministry  of  Labour, 
Social  Affairs  and  Consumer  Protection  includes  regular  courses  for  the  inspection  bodies. 
This  covers  social  legislation  and  the  detection  of  manipulation  based  on  the  TRACE 
project35. Austria introduced further training of officers in September 2016, while Portuguese 
authorities await approval of their training programme at the time of reporting.  

Member  States  introduced  new  systems  to  check  compliance.  Luxembourg  introduced  a 
specific system for driving times and rest periods for drivers of vehicles used for carriage of 
passengers,  while  the  Netherlands  brought  attention  to  further  knowledge  enrichment  and, 
where  appropriate,  purchased  materials.  The  Netherlands  focuses  on  attaining  the  right 
technology e.g. on desk tacho in order to better monitor and investigate more drivers digitally 
in  the  beginning  of  2022.  The  recently  adopted  Mobility  Package  I  shall  encourage  further 
harmonisation  of  enforcement.  The  Commission  will  also  elaborate  common  criteria  for 
training  of  enforcers  across  the  EU,  which  would  allow  for  a  more  consistent  approach  to 
enforcement throughout the EU. 

Italy  and  Slovakia  consider  that  the  digitalisation  of  tachographs  will  facilitate  the 
enforcement  of  social  legislation.  Indeed,  Member  States  reported  that  the  data  recorded  in 
the digital tachographs significantly reduces the possibility of concealing or falsifying and to 
a  greater  degree  forces  the  drivers  to  comply  with  the  social  legislation.  The  new  smart 
tachograph  2,  whose  technical  specifications  should  be  adopted  in  2021,  will  allow  for  the 
recording of even more  data to  facilitate enforcement of the new social legislation, such as 
border crossings and loading and unloading. This combined with increased awareness, should 
lead  to  better  and  smarter  enforcement  of  the  social  legislation  in  road  transport.  Other 
Member States reported that increasing the amount of sanctions would have a deterrent effect 
and would result in less offences.  

Italian  authorities  reported  difficulties  due  to  the  complexity  and  detailed  rules  of  the 
controls,  which  entails  a  considerable  effort  with  extensive  human  and  material  resources. 
They examine the challenges in reaching the required ratio of checks at the premises. 

Swedish authorities commented on the content of this biennial report. They emphasised that 
the report should reflect all infringements in accordance with appendix III of Regulation (EU) 
No  2016/403,  as  infringements  towards  other  specific  articles  are  not  included,  e.g.  with 
reference to the number of infringements on the availability of records of other work. 

16. Interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and Directive 2002/15/EC 

In  the  recent  years,  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  (CJEU)  shed  light  on 
interpretation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006  by  means  of  the  rulings  in  cases  Case  C-
231/18  NK  and  Joined  Cases  C-203/18  and  C-374/18.  These  cases  related  to  the 

35https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/road/social_provisions/doc/trace_explanatory_text_en.pdf 

26 

 
 
                                                           
interpretation  of  the  two  exceptions  provided  in  Article  13(1)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
561/2006.  

In Case C-231/18 NK, the Court ruled on the interpretation of the term ’local markets’ in the 
exception related to the transport of live animals from farms to local markets provided for in 
Article 13(1)(p)36. In its judgment of 7 February 201937, the CJEU ruled that the term ‘local 
markets’  must  be  interpreted  as  referring  neither  to  the  transaction  carried  out  between  a 
livestock  wholesaler  and  a  farmer  nor  to  the  livestock  wholesaler  themselves.  Thus,  the 
exception must be narrowly applied and cannot be extended to include vehicles transporting 
live animals directly from the farm to the slaughterhouse. 

In  Joined  cases  C-203/18  and  C-374/18,  the  interpretation  of  the  exception  referred  to  in 
Article  13(1)(d)38  related  to  the  transport  by  universal  service  providers  to  deliver  items  as 
part  of  the  universal  service.  The  question  at  stake  was  whether  the  exception  set  out  in 
Article  13(1)(d)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006  should  be  interpreted  as  covering  only 
vehicles or combinations of vehicles that are used exclusively for the purpose of delivering 
packages in the context of the universal service, or can it additionally be applied where the 
vehicles  or  combinations  of  vehicles  are  used,  predominantly  or  to  a  degree  determined  in 
some other way, also for the purpose of delivering packages in the context of the universal 
service.  The  CJEU  adopted  a  strict  interpretation  of  this  exception  and  ruled  that  Article 
13(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the exception 
which  it  lays  down  covers  only  vehicles  or  combinations  of  vehicles  that  are  used 
exclusively, during a particular transport operation, for the purpose of delivering items as part 
of the universal postal service. 

Regarding judicial interpretation by national courts, the Member States reported few national 
Court  decisions  interpreting  Directive  2002/15/EC  during  2017-2018.  Most  ruling  regarded 
the interpretation of breaks and rest periods. 

The Supreme Court of Greece ruled that the provisions of Directive 2002/15/EC, which lay 
down  that  break  and  rest  periods  are  not  considered  working  time,  do  not  prevent  the 
enactment  of  national  regulations  to  better  regulate  these  time  periods  for  tourist  bus 
drivers39.  The  Swedish  authorities  indicated  that  they  were  waiting  for  a  ruling  in  a  case 
related  to  the  possibility  of  concluding  a  collective  agreement  derogating  from  parts  of  the 
legal act implementing Directive 2002/15/EC. 

Spain  had  a  number  of  court  cases  related  to  collective  agreements,  holiday  pay,  travelling 
time, and carriage of passengers. One particular case40 related to the event of a change in the 
working  day  -  regular  working  day,  continuous  hours,  rest  periods  and  their  nature  and 

36 According to Article 13(1)(p), national exceptions may be granted to vehicles used for the carriage of live 
animals from farms to local markets and vice versa or from markets to local slaughterhouses within a radius of 
up to 100 km. 
37http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=210562&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=
req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2820408  
38 According to Article 13(1)(d), national exceptions may be granted to vehicles with a maximum permissible 
mass not exceeding 7,5 tonnes used by universal service providers as defined in Article 2(13) of Directive 
97/67/EC to deliver items as part of the universal service. 
39 Judgments nos. 1064/2014 and 601/2017 related to Article 10 of Presidential Decree 167/2006. 
40 Judgment No758/2018 of 14 September of the High Court of Justice of Madrid (Social Chamber, Section 1a) 
(AS 2019\ 925). 

27 

 
 
                                                           
services  at  night  -  and  the  impact  on  the  structure  of  the  wage  in  passenger  transport.  The 
trade union and work council took the position that a technical stop must be counted as part 
of the day (either as working time or time of presence), while the undertaking considered it 
neither working time nor time of presence. The court ruled that these periods of compulsory 
rest for drivers of the company are neither time of presence nor working time. 

Estonia reported that legal disputes concerning the implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC 
had  been  settled  by  courts  of  first  instance.  In  Slovenia,  doubts  regarding  the  hierarchy  of 
legal  acts  on  the  issue  of  whether  or  not  lunch  breaks  should  be  counted  as  working  time 
were interpreted.  

17. Monitoring and control arrangements of Directive 2002/15/EC in Member States 

All Member States implemented Directive 2002/15/EC. The monitoring of implementation of 
the Directive  is  ensured  at  national level by different  authorities depending on  the Member 
State.  The  bodies  responsible  for  the  monitoring  and  control  arrangements  of  Directive 
2002/15/EC  can  be  the  labour  inspectorate,  road  transport  agency,  occupational  health  and 
safety authority, police, road safety authorities and road transport inspections.  

18. Issues in relation to enforcement of Directive 2002/15/EC 

A  majority  of  Member  States  did  not  report  having  experienced  issues  in  relation  to 
enforcement of Directive 2002/15/EC. Some Member States shared specific issues they face 
at the national level.  

The  Cypriot  authorities  reported  difficulties  when  checking  compliance  with  the  provisions 
of  Directive  2002/15/EC  in  the  situation  where  drivers  frequently  switch  vehicles.  These 
difficulties arise for instance when a driver uses different generations of tachographs on each 
of the vehicles, or when he or she drives both vehicles covered under Directive 2002/15/EC 
and vehicles benefitting from an exemption from working time rules. Similarly, the Slovenian 
authorities  reported  having  met  difficulties  when  checking  the  working  time  of  drivers 
employed  simultaneously  by  several  undertakings.  Notwithstanding  the  increasing  share  of 
vehicles equipped with a digital tachograph, according to the Slovenian authorities this means 
that checks must still be carried out comparing data from various sources. Several Member 
States41 reported a lack of human resources to secure adequate enforcement of their national 
regulations stemming from Directive 2002/15/EC.  

The feedback from Member States shed light upon a need for further clarification of some of 
the definitions contained in the Directive. In particular, the Portuguese authorities called for 
further clarification on the definition of ‘periods of availability’, as also addressed in judicial 
interpretations by e.g. Spain. Likewise, Germany reported experiencing difficulties assessing 
which  activities  can  be  counted  as  ‘working  time’  when  reading  digital  data.  As  in  the 
previous reporting  period, Slovakia  reported its infrastructure network  to  be lagging  behind 
considering  the  growth  of  road  freight  transport,  and  stressed  that  this  could  have  adverse 
implications for road safety. The Slovak authorities mentioned the drivers’ lack of knowledge 
of  EU  social  rules  as  a  significant  obstacle  to  enforcement.  According  to  the  Slovak 
authorities,  there  is  therefore  a  crucial  need  for  better  training  of  the  drivers  in  this  area. 

41 Germany and Luxembourg. 

28 

 
 
                                                           
Sweden  also  reported  low  awareness  of  the  existing  legal  framework,  in  particular  among 
employers and self-employed drivers.  

Two  Member  States  formulated  direct  suggestions  to  improve  the  current  regulatory 
framework.  The  Hungarian  authorities  suggested  examining  the  possibility  of  integrating 
Directive 2002/15/EC and Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 into a single regulatory framework. 
The  Slovak  suggestions  revolved  around  the  development  of  stricter  sanction  mechanisms, 
including  mandatory  payment  of  fines  for  foreign  drivers  during  roadside  checks  and  new 
recovery  procedures  for  sanctions 
infringements  following  EU 
classification.  The  Slovak  authorities  also  recommended  harmonising  the  cost  of  penalties 
across the EU. 

to  serious 

linked 

19. Stakeholders' views on implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC in Member States 

Only  12  Member  States42  clearly  indicated  that  social  partners  had  been  consulted  for  the 
purpose of this reporting exercise. This number is slightly higher compared to the last report 
with 10 Member States, but still low compared to the previous two reporting periods. In all 
Member  States,  this  consultation  consisted  in  getting  the  views  of  representatives  of 
employers and trade unions. In five out of 12 Member States43, the views of social partners 
were not reflected in a separate section or paragraph, and in three of these44, it was indicated 
that there was no distinct feedback from social partners. In these Member States, the feedback 
was  rather  incorporated  throughout  the  document,  indistinctly  from  the  views  of  national 
authorities.  However,  the  feedback  from  social  partners  was  an  important  element  of  the 
report  from  seven  Member  States45.  Therefore,  opinions  from  social  partners  cannot  be 
analysed  as  they  do  not  constitute  a  representative  sample.  The  received  feedback  from 
national  social  partners  can  be  found  in  the  table  below.  The  Commission  would  like  to 
remind Member States that Article  13(1)  of Directive 2002/15/EC  requires them to include 
the views of both sides of industry as part of this reporting exercise. 

Feedback from national social partners 

 

In  Germany,  the  social  partners  asked  for  better  cooperation  between  the  supervisory  authorities  in 

Europe. They stressed that these authorities should be adequately staffed to improve control frequency, 

and be given more effective monitoring competences. They also raised the issue of working time other 

than driving time not being sufficiently covered by Directive 2002/15/EC. 

 

In  Italy,  the  social  partners  deplored  that  Directive  2002/15/EC  had  fallen  short  of  restoring  fair 

competition. They  also  called for  enhanced  cooperation  between national authorities, in  particular  as 

regards  the  payment  of  fines.  They  consider  that  there  is  a  need  for  further  clarification  of  certain 

definitions of the Directive, in particular that of “working time” and that of “time devoted to all road 

transport activities”. They suggested the creation of a specific status for mobile workers.  

  The  Slovak  Confederation  of  Trade  Unions  reported  that  the  general  lack  of  knowledge  of  the 

42  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Sweden  and  the 
United Kingdom. 
43 Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and Portugal.  
44 Cyprus, Lithuania and Poland. 
45 Germany, Greece, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  

29 

 
 
                                                           
legislation  on  occupational  health  and  safety  of  both  employees  and  employers  resulted  in  a  lack  of 

compliance with these rules. 

 

In Slovenia, a trade union complained that the non-inclusion of LCVs (vehicles under 3,5 tonnes) in the 

scope of the social rules created distortions of competition and endangered road safety. The same trade 

union also complained that there was a lack of labour inspectors to curb the offence rate effectively. 

They reported on the specific case of drivers involved in the carriage of passengers, who work both on 

long and short (<50 km) lines - the latter not being covered by the same provisions on working time. A 

Slovene haulier association argued that self-employed drivers should be excluded from the scope of the 

Directive, especially since it had failed to curb the rise of bogus self-employment. 

 

In Sweden, feedback from the industry was generally positive. In particular, hauliers reported that they 

appreciated  the  absence  of  direct  sanctions  and  the  possibility  to  adjust  their  behaviour  in  order  to 

comply with the rules on working time. 

 

In the United Kingdom, employers’ associations reported the implementing regulations to be effective 

and that there was no need for change. Only one reported that the whole Directive should be repealed  

as it was nothing but burdensome. British trade unions either had no outstanding issues, or reported that 

existing exemptions from the rules on working time were exploited to the detriment of the driver. They 

also reported that seasonal peaks of work could lead to situations in which drivers would exceed the 

allowed average number of working hours over the reference period of four months. To respect the 48 

hours average, some drivers will simply have to stop working, and in some cases the employers would 

force them to use annual leave. 

30 

 
 
20. Statistics on working days checked at the roadside and premises in 2017-2018 

MS 

Minimum  
checks  
(3%) for  
2017-2018 

AT 
BE 
BG 
HR 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 
FI46 
FR 
DE 
EL 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LV 
LT 
LU 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SK 
SL 
ES 
SE 
UK 
TOTAL 

1,412,640 
1,709,285 
2,903,418 
741,470 
140,994 
1,490,971 
660,000 
237,600 
1,125,366 
7,164,234 
9,311,378 
3,760,515 
1,486,356 
3,660,146 
8,533,632 
446,758 
17,000 
162,999 
1,080 
1,712,988 
6,575,688 
765,666 
2,781,948 
504,000 
521,850 
5,939,433 
1,029,600 
6,016,499 
70,813,515 

Number of working days checked 

Total 

at roadside 

at premises 

% at 
roadside 

% at  
premises 

4,774,392 
2,651,514 
5,866,556 
1,098,224 
181,843 
2,474,809 
636,237 
295,207 
511,194 
22,558,590 
28,476,834 
839,544 
3,459,527 
994,692 
8,527,234 
1,467,883 
50,078 
201,748 
2,243 
877,454 
9,386,590 
2,375,800 
8,664,264 
592,961 
734,171 
9,844,584 
1,469,923 
6,660,026 
125,674,122 

4,008,682 
2,198,346 
2,657,805 
636,725 
75,202 
1,544,608 
291,135 
110,496 
8,870 
17,287,684 
24,177,581 
485,652 
2,227,490 
98,059 
6,886,211 
589,039 
50,078 
64,983 
840 
691,041 
5,715,464 
1,852,727 
7,172,755 
255,698 
458,558 
6,378,112 
933,527 
5,142,962 
92,000,330 

765,710 
453,168 
3,208,751 
461,499 
106,641 
930,201 
345,102 
184,711 
502,324 
5,270,906 
4,299,253 
353,892 
1,232,037 
896,633 
1,641,023 
878,844 
No data47 
136,765 
1,403 
186,413 
3,671,126 
523,073 
1,491,509 
337,263 
275,613 
3,466,472 
536,396 
1,517,064 
33,673,792 

84% 
83% 
45% 
58% 
41% 
62% 
46% 
37% 
2% 
77% 
85% 
58% 
64% 
10% 
81% 
40% 
100% 
32% 
37% 
79% 
61% 
78% 
83% 
43% 
62% 
65% 
64% 
77% 
73% 

16% 
17% 
55% 
42% 
59% 
38% 
54% 
63% 
98% 
23% 
15% 
42% 
36% 
90% 
19% 
60% 
0% 
68% 
63% 
21% 
39% 
22% 
17% 
57% 
38% 
35% 
36% 
23% 
27% 

% of 
working  
days 
checked 
10.1% 
4.7% 
9.6% 
4.4% 
3.9% 
5.0% 
2.9% 
3.7% 
1.4% 
9.4% 
9.2% 
0.7% 
7.0% 
0.8% 
3.0% 
9.9% 
0.2% 
3.7% 
6.2% 
1,5% 
4,3% 
9,3% 
9,3% 
3,5% 
4,2% 
5,0% 
4,3% 
3,3% 
5,4% 

46 Finland did not include data from the national police, but based on other data met the 3% threshold. 
47 Lithuania only included checks at roadside. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
21. Statistics on number of working days checked at roadside by country of registration 
of the vehicle 

MS 

Nationals 

AT 
BE 
BG 
HR 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 
FI48 
FR 
DE 
EL 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LV 
LT 
LU 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SK 
SL 
ES 
SE 
UK 

1,198,121 
450,818 
1,124,400 
382,661 
75,186 
848,889 
152,985 
92,233 
1,240 
5,547,311 
11,693,273 
358,682 
928,405 
89,733 
5,668,657 
307,361 
36,244 
16,516 
448 
310,039 
2,538,735 
1,747,187 
6,113,573 
113,248 
116,845 
5,472,031 
498,095 
2,186,634 
TOTAL  48,069,550 

Other EU 
nationals 
2,753,466 
1,508,150 
632,270 
84,840 
16 
627,079 
138,150 
14,836 
1,340 
11,432,993 
11,203,626 
63,582 
1,042,946 
8,307 
1,116,344 
208,971 
13,418 
46,190 
392 
363,660 
1,585,712 
105,421 
724,758 
126,247 
230,119 
880,725 
416,742 
2,831,572 
38,161,872 

non-EU nationals 

Total 

57,095 
239,378 
901,135 
169,224 
0 
68,640 
0 
3,427 
6,290 
307,380 
1,280,682 
63,388 
256,139 
19 
101,210 
72,707 
416 
2,277 
0 
17,342 
1,591,017 
119 
334,424 
16,203 
111,594 
25,356 
18,690 
124,756 
5,768,908 

4,008,682 
2,198,346 
2,657,805 
636,725 
75,202 
1,544,608 
291,135 
110,496 
8,870 
17,287,684 
24,177,581 
485,652 
2,227,490 
98,059 
6,886,211 
589,039 
50,078 
64,983 
840 
691,041 
5,715,464 
1,852,727 
7,172,755 
255,698 
458,558 
6,378,112 
933,527 
5,142,962 
92,000,330 

48 Finland did not include data from the national police. 

32 

 
 
 
                                                           
22.  Statistics  on  checks  at  roadside  by  the  number  of  drivers  checked,  by  country  of 
registration and by type of carriage 

MS 

Total drivers 

AT 
BE 
BG 
HR 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 
FI49 
FR 
DE 
EL 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LV 
LT 
LU 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SK 
SL 
ES 
SE 
UK 
TOTAL 

238,342 
175,684 
153,749 
25,809 
4,917 
95,318 
17,946 
5,576 
4,444 
670,602 
1,470,719 
106,524 
88,878 
5,192 
605,869 
24,652 
20,856 
5,184 
30 
23,829 
475,992 
71,954 
450,230 
14,116 
19,051 
428,612 
34,438 
156,496 
5,395,009 

National 
drivers 

72,368 
61,883 
97,469 
15,623 
4,901 
56,277 
8,899 
4,753 
86 
233,192 
723,807 
87,894 
38,332 
4,836 
514,188 
11,861 
9,477 
1,584 
16 
10,691 
270,439 
67,277 
375,695 
6,480 
6,253 
388,057 
18,651 
67,821 
3,158,810 

Other EU  
national 
drivers 
157,433 
100,647 
15,073 
3,401 
16 
34,181 
8,741 
667 
1,336 
424,684 
657,320 
12,465 
38,365 
353 
83,001 
9,467 
5,555 
3,488 
14 
12,540 
98,587 
4,664 
50,044 
6,585 
8,679 
38,875 
15,052 
84,431 
1,875,664 

Non-EU  
drivers 

Carriers of  
passengers 

Carriers of goods 

8,541 
13,154 
41,207 
6,785 
0 
4,860 
306 
156 
3,022 
12,726 
89,592 
6,165 
12,181 
3 
8,680 
3,324 
5,824 
112 
0 
598 
106,966 
13 
24,491 
1,051 
4,119 
1,680 
735 
4,244 
360,535 

3,377 
13,220 
33,364 
2,662 
995 
5,608 
1,517 
111 
88 
51,122 
39,188 
69,404 
1,014 
298 
38,406 
804 
1,186 
159 
0 
1,226 
104,961 
5,018 
50,116 
1,300 
1,827 
30,645 
1,314 
12,271 
471,201 

234,965 
13,220 
126,566 
23,147 
3,922 
89,710 
16,429 
5,465 
4,356 
619,480 
1,431,531 
37,120 
87,864 
4,894 
567,463 
23,848 
19,670 
5,025 
30 
22,603 
371,031 
66,936 
400,114 
12,816 
17,224 
397,967 
33,124 
144,225 
4,780,745 

49 No data from the national police and thus no data on national drivers checked. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                           
23.  Statistics  on  checks  at  roadside  by  the  number  of  vehicles  stopped  by  country  of 
registration and type of tachograph 

MS  
 AT  
 BE  
 BG  
 HR  
 CY  
 CZ  
 DK  
 EE  
 FI  
 FR  
 DE  
 EL  
 HU  
 IE  
 IT  
 LV  
 LT 51 
 LU  
 MT  
 NL  
 PL52 
 PT  
 RO  
 SK  
 SL  
 ES  
 SE  
 UK  

 Total  

238,342 
102,142 
153,748 
25,305 
4,917 
102,904 
17,293 
5,576 
4,328 
663,133 
1,311,117 
106,524 
84,854 
4,088 
605,642 
22,578 
4,224 
5,184 
29 
23,829 
388,141 
71,954 
440,603 
13,981 
19,051 
362,286 
44,170 
156,496 

 Nationals  
72,368 
36,088 
97,469 
15,564 
4,901 
55,799 
8,260 
4,753 
8650 
244,093 
647,780 
87,609 
39,742 
3,717 
513,983 
10,681 
3,402 
1,584 
16 
10,691 
203,477 
67,277 
368,286 
6,401 
6,253 
323,704 
22,018 
67,821 

 Non- 
nationals  
157,433 
58,406 
15,072 
3,242 
16 
42,408 
8,730 
667 
1,336 
406,661 
588,464 
12,608 
35,346 
371 
82,980 
8,603 
792 
3,488 
13 
12,540 
86,303 
4,664 
48,345 
6,562 
8,679 
36,906 
20,868 
84,430 

 Third  
nationals  
8,541 
7,648 
41,207 
6,499 
0 
4,697 
303 
156 
2,906 
12,379 
74,873 
6,307 
9,766 
0 
8,679 
3,294 
30 
112 
0 
598 
98,361 
13 
23,972 
1,018 
4,119 
1,676 
1,284 
4,245 

 Analogue  
tacho  

9,835 
5,630 
30,750 
11,601 
3,496 
18,706 
616 
2,423 
0 
154,826 
218,378 
64,482 
23,191 
1,450 
211,582 
7,523 
3,310 
513 
8 
3,690 
125,619 
24,264 
143,286 
1,307 
3,953 
57,459 
5,040 
93,237 

 %  
Analogue  
4% 
6% 
20% 
46% 
71% 
18% 
4% 
43% 
0% 
23% 
17% 
61% 
27% 
35% 
35% 
33% 
78% 
10% 
28% 
15% 
32% 
34% 
33% 
9% 
21% 
16% 
11% 
60% 

 Digital  
tacho  

228,507 
96,512 
122,998 
13,704 
1,421 
84,198 
16,677 
3,152 
4,328 
508,307 
1,092,739 
42,042 
61,661 
2,638 
393,946 
15,055 
914 
4,671 
21 
20,139 
262,522 
47,690 
295,178 
12,674 
15,098 
304,82753 
39,130 
63,259 

 %  
Digital  
96% 
94% 
80% 
54% 
29% 
82% 
96% 
57% 
100% 
77% 
83% 
39% 
73% 
65% 
65% 
67% 
22% 
90% 
72% 
85% 
68% 
66% 
67% 
91% 
79% 
84% 
89% 
40% 

TOTAL   4,982,439 

2,923,823 

1,735,933 

322,683 

1,226,175 

25% 

3,754,008 

75% 

50 Data from the national police is not included. 
51 A great amount of data was not categorised by tachograph making the data inconsistent. 
52 A great amount of data was not categorised by tachograph making the data inconsistent. 
53 Data slightly inconsistent as data was not categorised by required categories. 

34 

 
 
 
                                                           
24. Statistics on checks at premises by the number of drivers, undertakings and working 
days checked 

MS 

Number of drivers checked 

Number of undertakings 
checked 

Number of working 
 days checked 

AT 
BE 
BG 
HR 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 
FI 
FR 
DE 
EL 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LV 
LT54 
LU 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SK 
SL 
ES 
SE 
UK 
TOTAL 

11,805 
18,938 
114,599 
3,378 
1,466 
7,914 
23,307 
3,505 
12,475 
93,877 
88,182 
3,670 
8,529 
5,489 
20,106 
3,802 
11,583 
1,577 
11 
8,586 
41,065 
5,957 
14,425 
5,953 
1,688 
117,370 
10,291 
1,485 
641,033 

1,506 
3,180 
8,680 
560 
622 
1,024 
1,130 
249 
2,094 
11,343 
6,268 
2,482 
1,578 
323 
5,861 
473 
882 
125 
2 
786 
4,328 
1,134 
11,761 
817 
378 
18,696 
361 
17,461 
104,104 

765,710 
453,168 
3,208,751 
461,499 
106,641 
930,201 
345,102 
184,711 
502,324 
5,270,906 
4,299,253 
353,892 
1,232,037 
896,633 
1,641,023 
878,844 
No data 
136,765 
1,403 
186,413 
3,671,126 
523,073 
1,491,509 
337,263 
275,613 
3,466,472 
536,396 
1,517,064 
33,673,792 

54 Not reported number of working days checked at premises. 

35 

 
 
                                                           
25. Statistic on types of offences at roadside 

MS 

Driving 
 time 

Breaks 

Rest  
periods 

28 days 
 record 
 sheet 

Lack/ 
availability 
 of records  
for other 
work  

Incorrect  
functioning 

Misuse and 
manipulation 

Total  
offences 

33,768 
71 
246 
234 
8 
914 
4 
487 
No data 
6 
86,904 
1,673 
1,439 
6 
723 
No data 
442 
134 
1 
2 
15,329 
3,241 
2,629 
242 
605 
1,052 
74 
4,056 
154,290 

1,185 
484 
156 
31 
135 
703 
573 
319 
22 
1,501 
0 
2,520 
2,416 
473 
4,326 
36 
503 
11 
0 
1,293 
4,734 
2,150 
13,218 
779 
1,106 
6,957 
26 
0 
45,657 

4,660 
1,142 
150 
1,484 
0 
726 
117 
757 
7 
17,341 
179,155 
3,246 
478 
342 
1,390 
67 
135 
5 
0 
2,091 
26,870 
9,326 
1,248 
100 
2,240 
907 
98 
29,494 
283,576 

335,490 
7,194 
2,867 
10,437 
1,316 
54,590 
1,315 
3,556 
332 
160,068 
620,597 
48,247 
13,092 
2,951 
99,617 
2,121 
5,124 
2,284 
14 
9,069 
122,908 
66,218 
58,397 
10,139 
12,857 
155,781 
24,388 
111,087 
1,942,056 

AT 
BE 
BG 
HR 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 
FI 
FR 
DE 
EL 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LV 
LT 
LU 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SK 
SL 
ES 

SE 
UK 
TOTAL 

61,677 
1,167 
142 
1,237 
158 
7,503 
119 
196 
132 
44,979 
99,673 
8,184 
959 
214 
13,729 
238 
1,176 
840 
4 
1,377 
17,608 
13,682 
12,927 
1,508 
2,106 
36,286 
4,183 
19,676 
351,680 

89,194 
1,030 
359 
1,351 
638 
8,937 
108 
665 
94 
7,031 
76,168 
11,065 
1,328 
1,388 
12,193 
314 
108 
772 
2 
1,553 
13,478 
8,694 
6,690 
3,519 
2,144 
18,397 
9,335 
11,485 
288,040 

87,654 
3,103 
983 
4,316 
256 
9,818 
355 
821 
35 
61,660 
98,311 
13,226 
2,221 
518 
21,028 
630 
1,292 
502 
6 
2,618 
43,424 
21,255 
21,546 
3,236 
3,810 
63,984 
10,445 
39,384 
516,437 

57,352 
197 
831 
1,784 
121 
25,989 
39 
311 
42 
27,550 
80,386 
8,333 
4,251 
10 
46,228 
836 
1,468 
20 
1 
135 
1,465 
7,870 
139 
755 
846 
28,198 
227 
6,992 
302,376 

36 

 
 
26. Statistics on types of offences at premises 

driving  
time 

breaks 

rest 
periods 

driving 
time  
records 

incorrect  
functioning or 
recording 
equipment 

Manipulation  
of  recording 
equipment 

968 
2,542 
164 
470 
663 
663 
118 
393 
4,382 
8,033 
54,155 
313 
769 
1,039 
4,819 

No data 
1,423 
1,393 
8 
2,348 
14,039 
3 
812 
2,085 
1,076 
6,570 
716 
314 

2,285 
6,455 
41 
1,685 
6,745 
2,410 
893 
336 
15,873 
2,678 
172,874 
65 
917 
8,721 
9,650 

No data 
577 
1,888 
4 
3,558 
22,432 
1 
993 
3,824 
915 
3,775 
3,146 
912 

2,132 
5,803 
204 
2,434 
5,737 
3,019 
668 
1,106 
12,726 
9,785 
91,161 
161 
1,956 
4,192 
7,630 

No data 
1,211 
2,664 
4 
2,865 
56,118 
4 
3,196 
5,786 
1,293 
10,241 
2,985 
814 

7 
775 
265 
36 
283 
5,115 
160 
75 
394 
3,429 
7,308 
36 
3,891 
9 
39,349 

No data 
836 
22 
0 
4,892 
507,345 
2 
327 
954 
170 
7,414 
2,168 
29 
585,291 

445 
35 
45 
1 
764 
510 
0 
0 
125 
29 
23,758 
7 
33 
653 
584 

No data 
0 
4 
0 
86 
173 
0 
576 
265 
61 
134 
798 
2,512 
31,598 

14 
0 
7 
752 
No data 
330 
0 
0 
874 
2,083 
No data 
3 
169 
173 
1,124 

No data 
197 
7 
0 
5,242 
5,948 
0 
7 
198 
218 
364 
0 
0 
17,710 

MS 

AT 
BE 
BG 
HR 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 
FI* 
FR 
DE 
EL 
HU 
IE* 
IT 

LV55 

LT 
LU 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT56 
RO 
SK 
SL 
ES 
SE57 
UK 

TOTAL  110,278 

273,653  235,895 

Lack/ 
availability 
of records 
for other 
work 
0 
468 
0 
483 
255 
299 
0 
71 
209 
1 
34,985 
17 
815 
0 
521 

No data 
9 
44 
0 
20 
6,129 
0 
0 
61 
68 
245 
4,780 
54 
49,534 

Total of  
offences 

5,851 
16,078 
726 
5,861 
14,447 
13,066 
1,839 
1,981 
34,583 
26,038 
384,241 
602 
8,550 
14,787 
63,677 

161,173 
4,253 
6,022 
16 
19,011 
612,184 
10 
5,911 
13,173 
3,801 
28,743 
14,593 
4,635 
1,465,852 

55 Offences detected at the premises are not listed and sorted separately. 
56 No offences by carriage of goods registered at premises. 
57Data is missing in this categorisation, as number of offences by size of undertaking is substantially higher. 

37