On October 25, 2024, the IRU asked the European Commission to formally clarify the practical impact of the recent EU Court of Justice ruling on contested elements of the First Mobility Package. Notably, on October 4, 2024, the Court issued its decision on several provisions, including those on driver postings, driving and rest times, and market access. The Court invalidated the rule on vehicle returns but upheld the legality of all other disputed provisions.
The IRU argues that the European road transport sector now urgently needs clarity on the ruling’s practical effects. Specifically, there is still ambiguity among stakeholders about the ruling’s immediate implications. Additionally, transport operators are seeking an official stance on how the ruling impacts penalties issued prior to the judgment. Raluca Marian, IRU’s Director of EU Advocacy, stated, “Although the European Court of Justice clearly ruled that the provision obliging transport operators to return vehicles to base every eight weeks is null and void, we still receive a simple question: ‘Can I still be fined for not returning the vehicle to base?’”
Marian added, “It may be clear to us that the Court's decision has immediate effect, but the hundreds and thousands of micro-businesses operating in EU transport are not all familiar with the EU Court’s complex regulatory system. Since the Commission has adeptly guided the sector so far, everyone is now looking to the Commission for official recognition. Currently, the Commission’s webpage on market access rules doesn’t even mention the Court's decision and still explains that the vehicle should return to base.”
Beyond the vehicle return, the IRU has also requested clarification on how the Court’s decision affects the practical understanding and application of at least two other areas for which the European Commission has already provided guidance: the driver return and the common understanding of situations involving driver postings and non-postings. “The IRU envisions a two-phase approach, with urgent clarification on the vehicle return provisions and a deeper analysis of the Court’s reasoning on other aspects,” concluded Raluca Marian.
