EU driver return rules tested in court in France

From fine to court: Spanish company challenges penalty for driver’s failure to return

You can read this article in 3 minutes

A Spanish transport company has been fined several thousand euros after a Ukrainian driver spent 57 days outside his country without the employer demonstrating that a genuine possibility of return had been provided. The company has decided to challenge the decision before a court in Foix, highlighting how complex and ambiguous EU rules on the mandatory return of drivers can be.

Gendarmerie de la Haute-Saône/Facebook (illustrative photo)

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

Across the road transport sector, carriers are increasingly contesting administrative penalties, pointing to both enforcement difficulties and the wide scope for interpretation under EU legislation.

When must a driver return?

Under the Mobility Package, drivers engaged in international transport must be given the opportunity to return either to their country of residence or to the employer’s operational centre at least once every four weeks. In October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled the obligation for trucks to return regularly to the country of establishment, but the obligation concerning drivers remained in force.

During a roadside inspection on the RD117 in May 2025, inspectors from the French DREAL concluded that the Ukrainian driver employed by the Spanish carrier had not returned within the required timeframe. As a result, the company was fined €4,000.

Why companies appeal fines

The carrier’s appeal is not without grounds. As a DREAL inspector explained to the French transport outlet Les Routiers, the Mobility Package leaves significant room for interpretation. In many cases, fines are overturned if the company can demonstrate that it offered the driver a real possibility of return, for example by proposing travel arrangements via SMS.

Companies also stress that drivers have the right to decide how and where they spend their rest periods. If a driver refuses an offered return, this may provide grounds for contesting the penalty. However, for inspectors, the key difficulty lies in proving that any refusal was genuinely voluntary and not the result of pressure from the employer.

Employer responsibilities and the risk of sanctions

A central aspect of a carrier’s responsibility lies in the documentation and organisation of drivers’ work. Employers are not required to force drivers to return, but they must be able to show that transport planning allowed for it. This includes route planning, schedules, and clear, documented communication.

In the absence of such evidence, fines may be upheld even if the driver did not formally refuse to return.

Beyond the immediate financial penalty, sanctions for failure to ensure a driver’s return can trigger more frequent inspections, notifications to authorities in the company’s country of establishment, and in-depth checks of work organisation. In practice, prevention, clear procedures, and thorough documentation remain the most effective safeguards against penalties.