The UNTRR reports that the incident occurred during a routine traffic inspection conducted by officers from DREAL (Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement). During the inspection, DREAL officers accused the driver of manually manipulating his working hours. The accusation involved claims that he was deliberately recording his hours by hand to exceed legal driving limits and to take a reduced weekly rest period in his truck, which would be in violation of transport regulations.
According to the UNTRR, the Paris Court of Appeal found that the DREAL officers failed to observe the driver’s rights as outlined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The key issues identified included the absence of an interpreter, despite the officers being aware that the driver did not speak or understand French. Furthermore, the court noted that the driver was not informed of his right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during the questioning.
The court concluded that this interrogation required procedural safeguards, which were not provided. The officers’ questioning was therefore seen as going beyond simple observations and requiring compliance with legal requirements for suspects.
The UNTRR stated that the court recognised that the nature of the alleged offence could involve both the driver and his employer. This classification meant that the driver had the status of a suspect during the inspection. As such, he should have been informed of his rights under Article 6, which guarantees individuals the right to a fair trial, including access to legal representation and information in a language they understand.
As a result, the court annulled the statements collected during the inspection and ruled that the French state must cover the Romanian company’s legal expenses incurred in the case.