Key findings:
- Inspections at the company’s premises and in its trucks took place in 2025 and uncovered more than 200 breaches of the applicable rules.
- The Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz had already issued six penalty notices totalling around €22,000.
- The Mühlhausen Local Court dismissed three individual counts and imposed a fine of more than €17,000.
- The company owner sought an acquittal, arguing that he had delegated the relevant duties to employees.
- Witnesses confirmed that drivers had been warned about the violations; two were dismissed.
- The court found that German-language posters covering driving times and breaks were insufficient for the company’s many Polish drivers.
- The company’s software alone could not reliably identify every breach.
More than 200 breaches involving drivers’ working time, driving hours and rest periods were identified during inspections of the haulier, MDR Thüringen reports.
Following the findings, the Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz issued six penalty notices worth around €22,000 in total. The company owner challenged the notices, taking the case to the Mühlhausen Local Court. During the proceedings, the court dismissed three individual counts and ultimately imposed a fine of more than €17,000. The ruling is not yet legally binding.
The company head told the court that he had assigned monitoring duties to employees. He also argued that some drivers had exceeded their driving limits or failed to take the required breaks despite having received instructions. Witnesses confirmed that drivers had been reprimanded and that two had lost their jobs.
The defence sought an acquittal, arguing, among other things, that the administrative decisions did not clearly identify any unlawful conduct by the company’s managing director personally.
Delegating duties does not remove management responsibility
The Mühlhausen Local Court rejected the defence’s arguments. In its reasoning, the court stressed that the managing director remained personally responsible in his role as Geschäftsführer. The judge described the breaches as serious and spanning “all areas”, adding that management should have introduced more effective oversight measures.
The ruling underlines an important compliance point for transport operators: assigning tasks to employees is not enough if the company’s controls do not work in practice.
Software alone cannot ensure compliance
The court also examined the tools used by the haulier to monitor breaches. According to MDR Thüringen, the company’s software was not capable of identifying every irregularity without additional oversight.
This is relevant for operators that rely on automated tachograph-data analysis. Software can support compliance teams, but it cannot replace staff training, organisational follow-up or action when violations continue to occur.
German-language posters were insufficient
The court also considered how the drivers were informed about the rules. Many of the company’s drivers were Polish, yet information about permitted driving times and breaks was provided partly through posters written in German.
The court found that this approach was inadequate. Training and instructions need to reflect a company’s actual compliance risks and be accessible to the employees expected to follow them.
The breaches were unintentional, but future cases could be treated more seriously
The court treated the company owner’s conduct as unintentional. However, the judge warned that similar breaches in the future could be considered deliberate. For operators, this means that once problems have been identified, failing to improve the monitoring system could result in a tougher assessment if the same issues recur.
Responsibility does not stop with the driver
The Thuringian case shows that investigations into driving and rest-time breaches can extend beyond the drivers’ conduct. Authorities may also assess how the operator’s compliance system is organised, how effectively its software works, how the company responds to violations and whether its training and instructions are suitable for its workforce.
Although the judgment from the Mühlhausen Local Court is not yet final, it indicates that delegating individual duties does not automatically transfer responsibility for the effectiveness of the company’s overall compliance system.
