Key points
- The consignee commissioned Kuehne+Nagel to arrange the transport. The shipment was then passed to Nordic Group Logistics before being handed to a Latvian carrier.
- Swedish inspectors classified the operation as illegal cabotage because of discrepancies in the documentation and issued a penalty of 60,000 Swedish kronor.
- After the penalty was imposed, the driver told inspectors that he had been dismissed and left without support from his employer.
- The inspector in charge highlighted the recurring problem of transport arrangements in which it is ultimately unclear who is carrying the goods and on whose behalf.
- Brussels is working on rules covering subcontracting. On 20 July 2026, the European Commission launched the second stage of consultations with social partners under the Quality Jobs Act.
Swedish transport website tidningenproffs.se reported on a roadside check in Tärnsjö. Inspectors stopped a Latvian truck combination with a Swedish trailer, driven by a Ukrainian national. The vehicle was transporting hydraulic cylinders from France to a consignee in Umeå.
The inspection soon moved beyond a routine document check. As officers traced who was responsible for the journey, they uncovered a multi-tier subcontracting chain that illustrates an issue European Union institutions have been examining for months.
One shipment, several companies
According to the Swedish report, the consignee in Umeå had placed the transport order with Kuehne+Nagel. The logistics company subsequently assigned the job to Nordic Group Logistics in Malmö. Investigators found that the shipment had then been passed on to a Latvian company whose driver was performing the transport.
Roger Ogemar, an inspector who heads the professional transport control group in Västerås, said this kind of arrangement was becoming a recurring concern. He said that transport is sometimes planned without making it clear who is actually moving the goods or which vehicle is being used.
Ogemar said the consignee knew only that it had ordered the service from Kuehne+Nagel. The actual carrier was several steps further down the chain. When a shipment failed to arrive, the consignee began asking what had happened to the goods, while the companies involved — according to the inspector — kept referring the matter to the next link in the chain.
The first red flag was in the paperwork
During the inspection, officers discovered that the tractor unit’s registration number did not match the number recorded in the transport documents. The driver said he had collected the loaded trailer at the port of Gothenburg.
He was eventually able to produce documents confirming that an earlier international journey had been completed correctly. Swedish inspectors nevertheless concluded that the documentation discrepancies meant the transport in question had to be treated as illegal cabotage.
The carrier received a 60,000 Swedish kronor penalty (about €5,500), and the vehicle was immobilised. The fine was paid three days later, after which the immobilisation was lifted.
That was not the end of the matter.
The driver was left at the bottom of the chain
Roger Ogemar said the driver told inspectors that he had been dismissed after a phone call with a representative of the carrier. The following day, he reportedly still had no further instructions from the company and did not know how he would get home.
The Swedish website reported that the driver was a Ukrainian man aged about 65. He reportedly told inspectors that he had injured his leg while at the front three months earlier, had difficulty walking and needed the job to support his family in Ukraine. Ogemar also said that the driver claimed to have only three days’ worth of food left.
Inspectors then began reconstructing the full route taken by the order. Ogemar said that no one wanted to accept responsibility, with each party pointing to another company further down the chain.
Brussels turns its attention to subcontracting
The Swedish case adds to the wider European debate about multi-tier subcontracting, an issue European Union institutions have been examining for months.
In February 2026, the European Parliament adopted a report on subcontracting chains and the role of intermediaries. The report, which calls for a European Union strategy to combat worker exploitation, was backed by 332 MEPs. A total of 209 voted against it, while 33 abstained. Parliament called on the European Commission to present a directive covering the sector as part of the planned Quality Jobs Act.
The report warns that lengthy subcontracting chains can blur accountability, drive down pay, weaken safety standards and make employment less secure. Among Parliament’s proposals are stronger direct employment relationships in high-risk sectors such as transport, joint liability for wages and social contributions across the subcontracting chain, European Union-wide licensing for labour intermediaries, and closer cooperation between the European Labour Authority, Europol and national authorities.
Road transport is one of the sectors most affected by this debate. The European Road Haulers Association (UETR) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) argue that multi-tier subcontracting contributes to the decline in freight rates, weakens the bargaining position of smaller companies and encourages social dumping.
Germany’s transport association, DSLV, takes a more cautious view. Its director general, Frank Huster, says subcontractors are a structural part of logistics and that restricting their use would seriously interfere with the freedom to provide services and compete. In his view, such restrictions could push up prices and create additional administrative burdens.
Commission examines responsibility across the chain
On 20 July 2026, the European Commission launched the second stage of consultations with social partners on the Quality Jobs Act. Protecting workers’ rights in subcontracting chains is among the issues covered in this phase of the work.
In its consultation document, the Commission says that complex cross-border subcontracting arrangements make it harder to determine which employer is responsible for breaches. The main obstacles are a lack of transparency and fragmented accountability. Research cited by the Commission also suggests that the risk of fraud and abuse can increase as chains become longer and more complex.
The options under consideration have not yet been turned into legislation. The Commission has indicated, however, that the future initiative could take the form of a directive. In relation to subcontracting, one possible approach would be to strengthen liability and make enforcement more effective throughout the entire chain.
At the same time, Brussels stresses that any new rules must account for their cumulative impact on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and avoid creating unnecessary or duplicative administrative requirements.
Who is responsible when an order changes hands?
The Swedish case does not settle which regulatory model would be appropriate. It does, however, provide a concrete example of an issue often discussed in Brussels in terms of joint liability, supply chain transparency and enforcement.
Here, the structure could be reconstructed only after inspectors intervened: consignee — logistics operator — subsequent contractor — actual carrier — driver.
Once the vehicle was stopped, the goods did not reach the customer, the carrier was fined and the driver — according to the account he gave inspectors — lost his job.
Swedish inspector Roger Ogemar argues that transport should be organised so that the consignee can identify and contact the company actually performing the journey. He also criticises arrangements in which less reliable carriers can undercut competitors by compromising drivers’ employment conditions.
The Swedish inspection therefore provides a concrete example of the question European regulators are now trying to answer: how far should liability extend through a subcontracting chain, and how much information about the actual carrier should the company ordering the service be required to have?
The Swedish case shows that the subcontracting debate is not only about contract structures and service costs. It is also about who truly controls a transport operation and who bears responsibility when something goes wrong in a multi-tier chain.
