AdobeStock

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

You can read this article in 7 minutes

Europe’s driving-licence system is about to change: new rules on driver ages, medical checks, digital licences and cross-border bans will take effect by 2029, forcing hauliers to adapt their recruitment and compliance practices. This article explains the two directives behind those changes and clarifies what each one means in practice.

There is a person behind this text – not artificial intelligence. This material was entirely prepared by the editor, using their knowledge and experience.

Two new EU directives published in November 2025 will reshape how driving licences are issued, renewed and enforced across the European Union. The changes affect medical requirements, licence validity, minimum driving ages and the introduction of a digital driving licence. For road-freight operators, the reforms are particularly relevant as they influence driver recruitment, compliance processes and the management of cross-border journeys.

The reforms are split between two directives:

  • Directive (EU) 2025/2205 – the major update covering training, medical rules, licence validity, digital licences and minimum ages.
  • Directive (EU) 2025/2206 – a narrower amendment dealing with cross-border driving bans and information exchange.

Although both texts were adopted simultaneously and share the same implementation deadlines, only Directive 2205 contains the substantive changes affecting daily operations for hauliers.

A major overhaul of licence rules

Directive 2025/2205 is the centrepiece of the reform, offering the most significant update to EU driving-licence rules in over a decade. It introduces new training and testing requirements, modernises medical rules, and adjusts several age thresholds. One of its most noteworthy changes concerns access to professional categories: from 2029, 18-year-olds will be able to obtain a category C licence provided they complete their initial CPC. This adjustment is intended to help ease Europe’s driver shortage by enabling earlier entry into the profession while maintaining a professional training baseline.

The directive also introduces an EU-wide probation period for all novice drivers. Regardless of how old a driver is when they obtain their first licence, they must complete at least two years as a probationary driver, during which Member States will apply stricter sanctions for drink-driving and seatbelt non-compliance. For operators taking on younger drivers, this means closer supervision and a heightened need for structured induction programmes.

Training requirements will also change. To ensure a more consistent standard across Europe, the theory test will include updated topics such as blind-spot awareness, the role and limitations of driver-assistance systems, the correct way to open vehicle doors in urban settings, and the risks associated with distraction, particularly mobile-phone use. The directive also places greater emphasis on the protection of vulnerable road users, a priority for hauliers operating in urban environments.

Medical rules are being modernised as well. Drivers applying for a new licence or renewing an existing one must undergo an assessment covering eyesight and cardiovascular function. While Member States may replace medical checks with self-assessment for cars and motorcycles, this option does not apply to professional drivers. The directive also allows countries to shorten licence validity for drivers aged 65 and above, meaning older drivers may face more frequent checks depending on how individual Member States transpose the rules.

The validity periods themselves are being harmonised: category C and D licences will continue to follow a five-year renewal cycle, while car and motorcycle licences will generally be valid for 15 years. If these also function as national identity documents, Member States may reduce their validity to 10 years.

One of the most visible reforms will be the introduction of the EU digital driving licence, which will become the standard format across the bloc. Although mobile-based, the digital licence will not replace physical cards entirely; anyone who prefers a card will retain the right to request one. For road-freight operations, the digital licence is expected to simplify roadside checks, particularly in cross-border situations.

Cross-border enforcement strengthened

Directive 2025/2206 plays a much narrower role. It does not affect training, licence validity or driving ages; instead, it focuses exclusively on the enforcement of serious driving bans across borders. Under the new rules, if a driver commits a serious offence in another Member State – such as drink-driving, causing a fatal accident or excessive speeding resulting in a fatal outcome – the country where the offence occurred must promptly inform the country that issued the licence. The issuing authority must then decide whether to recognise the disqualification, ensuring that dangerous drivers cannot avoid a ban by returning home.

This measure is particularly relevant for international hauliers, as the information-exchange system will become faster and more consistent. Transport managers may need to adapt their compliance procedures to respond quickly to cross-border infringement notifications received through the EU driving-licence network.

When the changes take effect

Both directives follow the same timeline. Member States must transpose them into national law by 26 November 2028, and the rules will begin to apply from 26 November 2029. Some elements – such as the digital licence – may appear earlier in certain countries, but the full package will not come into force before 2029.

What this means for road-freight operators

For the haulage sector, the reforms carry several practical consequences:

  • Younger, CPC-qualified drivers will be able to enter the workforce sooner.
  • Training providers will need to update teaching materials to cover new theory topics.
  • Compliance teams must prepare for more consistent cross-border enforcement.
  • Operators with older drivers may face shorter licence validity periods depending on national decisions.
  • Digital licences should streamline roadside checks, especially for cross-border transport.

While the exact impact will depend on how each Member State implements the rules, the overall direction is clear: more harmonisation, earlier access to the profession, stronger enforcement, and a shift to digital documentation.

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