TransInfo
Freight ForwardingTransportLogistics

Photo credits @ AdobeStock/Unique Vision

EU climate targets for trucks under pressure as uptake of zero-emission vehicles stalls

You can read this article in 3 minutes
Sabina Koll

Sabina Koll

Journalist Trans.info | 26.06.2025

The implementation of the EU’s climate targets for heavy-duty vehicles is coming under increasing pressure. While the transition to zero-emission drive systems is politically supported, demand for such vehicles remains low. According to the Association of European Automobile Manufacturers (ACEA), truck manufacturers could face fines running into billions of euros from 2030 if they fail to meet CO2 fleet targets.

The text you are reading has been translated using an automatic tool, which may lead to certain inaccuracies. Thank you for your understanding.

At present, over 90% of newly registered trucks in the EU are equipped with diesel engines. In the first quarter of 2025, only 3.5% were battery-electric or plug-in hybrid models. This indicates a structural conflict of objectives, according to ACEA.

ACEA calls for targeted political action

During a press briefing in Brussels, Christian Levin, CEO of Scania and Chair of ACEA’s Commercial Vehicle Committee, stressed that the industry is not questioning the climate targets. Speaking to The Munich Eye, Levin said the key issue is how these targets can be achieved under realistic conditions.

He highlighted Germany’s central role in European freight logistics:

“The majority of transport in the EU passes through Germany. Therefore, it is crucial for the country to actively support the transition to low- or zero-emission vehicles,” Levin said.

Call for higher fossil fuel prices and faster infrastructure rollout

To accelerate the transition, Levin called for a significant increase in the price of fossil fuels such as diesel. At the same time, he urged the rapid deployment of a reliable charging infrastructure for electric trucks, describing it as essential for making the market ramp-up of zero-emission drive systems economically viable.

In addition to incentives such as tax breaks, a CO₂-based road toll for trucks, and targeted funding programmes, reform of the electricity grid infrastructure is also required. According to ACEA, grid expansion planning must be aligned with the anticipated rise in demand from electromobility. Approval procedures lasting up to ten years—as currently seen in Sweden—make swift progress impossible.

Stalemate on key EU directive

The association also criticised delays in revising the EU directive on the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles. A regulatory update is needed to ensure electric trucks can be compared with conventional diesel trucks on a consistent legal basis. Despite agreement among the European Commission, Parliament, and industry stakeholders, a breakthrough in the Council of Member States is still pending.

Tags:
Drivers receive high fines for ‘lack of GNSS signal’. What can be done to avoid themAcross Italy, hauliers re reporting a surge in fines reaching several thousand euros for alleged ‘malfunctions’ of second-generation smart tachographs. The problem is that – according to explanations from the Italian Ministry of the Interior and EU institutions – in many cases there is no malfunction at all, only a temporary anomaly in the GNSS signal. And that is a fundamental difference. In recent months, Italian drivers and carriers have reported an increasing number of cases involving expensive and severe penalties imposed for the alleged ‘missing GNSS transmission’ in second-generation smart tachographs (G2V2), as reported by the Italian transport press. Control protocols most often record the phrase: ‘lack of GNSS signal’. On this basis, the authorities apply Article 179 of the Italian Road Code – a regulation intended for vehicles with a manipulated or non-functioning tachograph. The sanctions are very severe: from 866 to 3,464 euros, the possible suspension of the driving licence for up to three months, 10 penalty points, and joint liability for the company. However, this is a misinterpretation by the authorities. It should be recalled that the Italian Ministry of the Interior indicated in a circular from February 2024 that errors ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ do not indicate a failure but a ‘simple software anomaly or temporary problem with satellite signal authentication’. Such an event does not render the tachograph faulty. The device continues to function, records data, and remains compliant with the law. EU regulations (including EU Regulation 799/2016) also clearly distinguish an anomaly from a failure, and classify the lack of GNSS signal in the former category. What is the problem with GNSS? It is often external interference The issue was highlighted by the Council of the European Union in a document dated 21 May 2025, which points to the growing number of GNSS signal disruptions (jamming and spoofing). Their main sources are Russia and Belarus, and the effects are felt not only by lorries but also by ships and aircraft. In such cases, the responsibility of the driver or carrier for a temporary loss of signal is obviously excluded. What should carriers do to avoid unjust fines? It is not about avoiding inspections, but about asserting your rights and preparing documentation properly. To avoid fines in cases of GNSS signal loss, you should: Immediately secure data from the tachograph and record the error code This is the key evidence. Codes ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ indicate an anomaly, not a malfunction, and may determine whether the fine is annulled. Demand that the authorities precisely indicate the legal basis The carrier or driver has the full right to ask inspectors to justify why they classify the anomaly as a ‘failure’. It often turns out that officers incorrectly apply Article 179. Request an assessment from a tachograph service centre An authorised service centre can confirm that the device is functioning correctly and that the issue concerned only the GNSS signal. Such a document is a very strong argument in an appeal. Attach EU documents and ministerial interpretations to the appeal Explanations from the Ministry of the Interior and provisions of EU Regulation 799/2016 clearly state that such anomalies are not failures. In practice, it is often enough simply to refer to these documents for the fine to be overturned. Implement a company procedure for handling GNSS signal loss This could be a short instruction for the driver: • record the time and place, • report the issue to the dispatcher, • take a screenshot of the error code, • report the incident upon return to the company. Such simple actions allow for an effective defence in the event of an inspection. Additionally, carriers should properly train drivers and explain the difference between an ‘anomaly’ and a ‘failure’. Many drivers unknowingly accept the fine, assuming that enforcement officers know the regulations better. It is important during an inspection to verify the technical and legal grounds for the fine.

Drivers receive high fines for ‘lack of GNSS signal’. What can be done to avoid themAcross Italy, hauliers re reporting a surge in fines reaching several thousand euros for alleged ‘malfunctions’ of second-generation smart tachographs. The problem is that – according to explanations from the Italian Ministry of the Interior and EU institutions – in many cases there is no malfunction at all, only a temporary anomaly in the GNSS signal. And that is a fundamental difference. In recent months, Italian drivers and carriers have reported an increasing number of cases involving expensive and severe penalties imposed for the alleged ‘missing GNSS transmission’ in second-generation smart tachographs (G2V2), as reported by the Italian transport press. Control protocols most often record the phrase: ‘lack of GNSS signal’. On this basis, the authorities apply Article 179 of the Italian Road Code – a regulation intended for vehicles with a manipulated or non-functioning tachograph. The sanctions are very severe: from 866 to 3,464 euros, the possible suspension of the driving licence for up to three months, 10 penalty points, and joint liability for the company. However, this is a misinterpretation by the authorities. It should be recalled that the Italian Ministry of the Interior indicated in a circular from February 2024 that errors ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ do not indicate a failure but a ‘simple software anomaly or temporary problem with satellite signal authentication’. Such an event does not render the tachograph faulty. The device continues to function, records data, and remains compliant with the law. EU regulations (including EU Regulation 799/2016) also clearly distinguish an anomaly from a failure, and classify the lack of GNSS signal in the former category. What is the problem with GNSS? It is often external interference The issue was highlighted by the Council of the European Union in a document dated 21 May 2025, which points to the growing number of GNSS signal disruptions (jamming and spoofing). Their main sources are Russia and Belarus, and the effects are felt not only by lorries but also by ships and aircraft. In such cases, the responsibility of the driver or carrier for a temporary loss of signal is obviously excluded. What should carriers do to avoid unjust fines? It is not about avoiding inspections, but about asserting your rights and preparing documentation properly. To avoid fines in cases of GNSS signal loss, you should: Immediately secure data from the tachograph and record the error code This is the key evidence. Codes ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ indicate an anomaly, not a malfunction, and may determine whether the fine is annulled. Demand that the authorities precisely indicate the legal basis The carrier or driver has the full right to ask inspectors to justify why they classify the anomaly as a ‘failure’. It often turns out that officers incorrectly apply Article 179. Request an assessment from a tachograph service centre An authorised service centre can confirm that the device is functioning correctly and that the issue concerned only the GNSS signal. Such a document is a very strong argument in an appeal. Attach EU documents and ministerial interpretations to the appeal Explanations from the Ministry of the Interior and provisions of EU Regulation 799/2016 clearly state that such anomalies are not failures. In practice, it is often enough simply to refer to these documents for the fine to be overturned. Implement a company procedure for handling GNSS signal loss This could be a short instruction for the driver: • record the time and place, • report the issue to the dispatcher, • take a screenshot of the error code, • report the incident upon return to the company. Such simple actions allow for an effective defence in the event of an inspection. Additionally, carriers should properly train drivers and explain the difference between an ‘anomaly’ and a ‘failure’. Many drivers unknowingly accept the fine, assuming that enforcement officers know the regulations better. It is important during an inspection to verify the technical and legal grounds for the fine.

Agnieszka Kulikowska - Wielgus

Agnieszka Kulikowska - Wielgus Journalist Trans.info | 17.11.2025

Daily over 1,000 kilometres: electric truck proves long-distance viability in Sweden

Daily over 1,000 kilometres: electric truck proves long-distance viability in Sweden

Sabina Koll

Sabina Koll Journalist Trans.info | 17.11.2025

EU driving-licence reforms explained: what hauliers and lorry drivers need to know

EU driving-licence reforms explained: what hauliers and lorry drivers need to know

Pölös Zsófia

Pölös Zsófia Journalist Trans.info | 17.11.2025