Overtime is part of everyday life in road freight transport—yet pay for it often remains a point of dispute. Two court rulings from Germany and Italy illustrate that what matters is not the overtime worked, but documentation that will stand up in court.
While a driver in Germany came away empty-handed despite extensive claims, in Italy it was precisely tachograph data that led to success in court.
Germany: claim fails due to lack of detail
In the German case, a former truck driver demanded payment for around 2,700 overtime hours accumulated over several years of employment.
The Hessian Regional Labour Court dismissed the claim in its judgment of 8 February 2024 (Ref. 9 Sa 1285/22).
As the court found, it is not enough to submit general monthly lists or consolidated summaries. Instead, an employee must set out specifically
- on which days,
- from what time to what time,
- and on whose instruction,
he worked or was available for work.
Only on that basis is the employer required—under the so-called graduated burden of presentation—to respond in detail.
The judgment therefore confirms a clear line: if the employer disputes the overtime, the driver initially bears the full burden of proof.
Other claims also failed. Night transports are not automatically to be treated as permanent night work, and parts of the claims were already time-barred.
Italy: tachograph recognised as “full proof”
Italian case law reached a different outcome.
In its order of 12 March 2026 (Ref. 5702/2026), the Corte di Cassazione upheld the conviction of two employers to pay overtime, back pay and further entitlements such as the 13th and 14th monthly salary and TFR.
At the centre of the case was the evidential value of the tachograph charts.
The court made it clear: if the employer does not dispute these data “clearly, specifically and expressly”, they can be treated as full proof of the hours actually worked.
A blanket denial is not sufficient. In that case, the court may use the tachograph data directly to calculate working time.
In addition, the court confirmed joint and several liability in the event of a change of employer under Art. 2112 c.c.: the former and the new employer are jointly liable for existing claims.
No contradiction—just the same logic
At first glance, the decisions appear contradictory. In fact, they follow the same legal logic.
In both cases, what matters is not the existence of overtime, but the quality of the evidence:
- In Germany, the driver failed due to records that were too general
- In Italy, the driver won because technical data were available in concrete form and were not effectively disputed
The difference therefore lies not in labour law itself, but in how evidence is presented.
Practical relevance for forwarders and drivers across Europe
For transport operations in Europe, this points to a clear trend. The working time of mobile workers is regulated across the EU. At the same time, driver shortages, cost pressure and complex routes are increasing actual working hours—and with them the potential for conflict.
What will be decisive is the interface between:
- tachograph
- dispatching
- working time recording
- and payroll accounting
The tachograph provides detailed activity data, but it does not replace complete labour-law documentation. At the same time, as the Italian case shows, it can become the key piece of evidence in a dispute.
What the rulings mean in practice
Both decisions lead to clear operational consequences:
- Drivers must document working hours specifically and as day-by-day as possible
- Companies must evaluate available data consistently—especially tachograph data—and, in disputes, review and challenge them in a specific manner
- General records are no longer sufficient
- Technical data can be decisive—but only if they are properly submitted or effectively challenged
It becomes critical above all where systems do not align. If tachograph data, route planning and payroll do not match, litigation risk increases significantly.
Conclusion: documentation is decisive—across Europe
The two decisions clearly show: in road freight transport, entitlement to overtime pay is determined not by the extra work actually performed, but by whether it can be proven.
Anyone claiming overtime must substantiate it specifically. Anyone disputing it must precisely refute the data available.
Working time recording is therefore increasingly becoming a key factor—not only for regulatory compliance, but for liability, pay and competitiveness in the European transport market.
