With the advent of the smart tachograph and the changes brought about by the Mobility Package, new developments in enforcement were bound to come. Environmental and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) and its EU colleagues are testing various systems for remote reading of tachographs. EU member states should have such equipment in place by mid-2024.

The much-discussed ERRU register also appears to have made its appearance in the meantime. More and more often I see the ILT bills informing transport operators of the latest state of the penalty points register and warning companies to watch their step: 'A few more points and your license is in jeopardy'.

The ILT also recently introduced "digital surveillance," in an effort to check companies in a faster and more efficient way. In particular, with the goal of meeting the European quota for driver days to be checked. This digital surveillance does not directly lead to fines. However, it does draw attention to the carrier in case of violations. Perhaps good for the level playing field, but combined with the new smart tachograph and the ERRU register, it is a potential danger for transport companies navigating in gray areas.

Despite these digital developments, there remains plenty to write about the "old-fashioned" road and business inspections. For example, the Council of State recently made an important ruling on the evidence and reasoning of a fine report following a road check. A case that provided an interesting discussion for future cases.

According to the inspector, a device that could be used for manipulation was allegedly found in the vehicle during this roadside inspection. The inspector recorded his findings in a fine report, added a general sentence to the effect that Regulation 561/2006 applied and indicated which provision was allegedly violated. This seemed to close the case, especially since a fine report has "coercive evidential force. This means that, as a rule, the accuracy of what is included in the fine report is assumed, since it is drawn up on an oath or promise of offic

The inspector was taken at his word. Consequently, a fine was imposed on the carrier, but it was not upheld in the highest administrative court. The reason: although it was recorded in the fine report by the inspector that the regulation would apply, sensory observations and supporting evidence for this were lacking. In other words, the inspector did not explain and prove how he had reached his conclusion. Legal drivel or a fundamental point? In my opinion, the latter. There simply must be insight into how the analyst arrived at certain conclusions. Even if he is holy (on oath of office) convinced that he is right. Also the inspector is "only" a human being and can make (unconscious) mistakes.

It is precisely on this point that I see things go wrong more than once in practice. For example, a fine report concludes that there is a violation, that no exception applies, or that a certain legal basis does apply. Such conclusions in an official report cannot be subsequently checked for accuracy, but can have very far-reaching consequences for the carrier. Fortunately, the highest administrative law judge in the aforementioned case put a stop to the fine.

‍