Photo: European Roads / Flickr / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 / image has been cropped and is for illustrative purposes only

EU Commission backs Italy on Brenner truck transit scheme

You can read this article in 4 minutes

The European Commission has decided to support Italy's lawsuit against Austria's truck transit measures on the Brenner Corridor by intervening in the case at the European Court of Justice.

The European Commission has decided to support Italy’s legal action against Austria’s truck transit measures along the Brenner corridor. The Italian government lodged the case with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 30 July, arguing that Austria’s truck transit restrictions violate the EU’s fundamental principle of the free movement of goods.

The lawsuit specifically targets measures such as sectoral driving bans, night driving bans, winter driving bans, and block clearances implemented by Austria, which are deemed incompatible with EU law. The European Commission’s decision to intervene as an intervener signals its commitment to uphold EU law and protect the internal market.

The German Association (BGL) has been vocal about the adverse effects of Austria’s measures on the economy, particularly the medium-sized transport industry, truck drivers, and residents of the Bavarian Inn Valley. The BGL has repeatedly called on the EU Commission to act against Austria’s unilateral restrictions.

In a statement, BGL board spokesman Prof. Dr. Dirk Engelhardt welcomed the EU Commission’s intervention:

“The BGL expressly welcomes the EU Commission’s move to intervene as an intervener. It is a long overdue signal that strengthening the internal market will once again play a greater role in the new Commission. The EU Commission is thus finally living up to its responsibility as guardian of the treaties and defender of the EU’s fundamental freedoms. Unfortunately, Germany has so far failed to join Italy’s lawsuit and to take a clear position on this important issue.”

Impact of Brenner traffic restrictions

A recent study by the Italian Chamber of Commerce in Bolzano reveals the severe economic impact of additional traffic restrictions on the Lueg Bridge, set to begin on January 1, 2025. The study, conducted by Uniontrasporti, outlines two scenarios that forecast substantial financial losses.

Scenario A assumes a 50% capacity reduction, maintaining one lane in each direction and two lanes for lighter traffic during peak times. This scenario predicts that 90% of commercial traffic will continue using the Brenner motorway, with the remaining 10% diverting to alternate passes. The estimated cost of increased transit times is €174 million per year, with freight transport accounting for €93.5 million.

Scenario B presents a more drastic measure, simulating a total closure of the route and banning heavy vehicle traffic on the B182. The projected cost of rerouting and increased transit times under this scenario rises to €640 million annually, with €327.3 million directly impacting freight transport.

Criticism from Italian and German hauliers

To address these concerns, the Italian authorities have appealed for capacity assurances along the Brenner corridor, including lifting night-time truck bans and maintaining year-round two-lane traffic. They also advocate for enhanced rail transport options to mitigate the impact of the restrictions.

Additionally, the hauliers argue that these measures will severely disrupt their operations, increase costs, and undermine Italy’s competitiveness in the export market. Italian hauliers, in particular, have voiced concerns that the restrictions will disproportionately affect their ability to transport goods efficiently, resulting in higher costs for manufacturers who rely on road transport.

Earlier appeals by transport associations and politicians from Italy and Germany to temporarily ease restrictions on truck traffic have gone unanswered. In July, European hauliers, including the German Federal Association for Goods Transport, Logistics and Utilisation (BGL), joined forces with other European trade associations and the International Road Transport Union (IRU) to urge the European Commission to take immediate action to ensure the free movement of goods on this critical European route. 

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