Noting that Member States apply different penalties for serious infringements against road transport social rules and pointing out that the differences among the Member States do not concern just the level of fines but also types and the categorisation of the penalties, the European Parliament is calling for further harmonisation in this area.
On 18 May the European Parliament, by adopting Hella Ranner’s own-initiative report, called on the Commission for harmonise penalties for truck drivers who infringe road rules on working time, rest periods or working conditions.
Under Regulation on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, Member States are required to lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of road transport social rules, which must be “effective, proportionate, dissuasive and non-discriminatory.” There is no EU definition of what should be considered a serious infringement. Directive 2006/22/EC provides a non-exhaustive list of what should be regarded as an infringement such as exceeding the maximum driving times, disregarding the minimum daily or weekly rest period, disregarding the minimum break and failure to fit a tachograph. This list has been recently replaced by guidelines on the categorisation of infringements and their level of seriousness. The MEPs are calling for “uniform and binding interpretation” of the EU Regulations on driving and resting hours.
The MEPs believe that a “categorization of penalties” is necessary, they are, therefore, calling upon the Commission to put forward proposals harmonising penalties and levels of fines for infringements against the social rules in road transport. According to the MEPs “Minimum and maximum penalties should be laid down for each offence against these rules.” The European Commission is very likely to take such suggestions on board. Philip Bradbourn has said that “the EU should not venture any further towards deciding the penalties that our judicial system should enforce.”
The Lisbon Treaty has abolished the Maastricht Treaty pillar structure and moved “Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters” to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Hence, decision making on criminal matters is no longer intergovernmental but is subjected to the Community method, co-decision, qualified majority voting and the ECJ’s jurisdiction has been extended to this area. The Union has a new competence to define certain criminal offences and set minimum sentences for those found guilty of them, overriding UK criminal laws and sentencing policies. In fact, the European Parliament recalled that the Lisbon Treaty provides, on Article 83 (2), the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy. The UK has the right to choose whether to take part in judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters. However, it might not have an opt out from substantive criminal law measures as they will be adopted to ensure the implementation of another Union policy and the decision making procedure is to be found in the provisions concerning the policy in question therefore, it will be out of the Protocol on the area of freedom, security and justice.
