CASE STUDY: THE COMPLEXITY OF CROSS BORDER COMPLIANCE – A REAL EXAMPLE FROM BELGIUM
A recent incident in Belgium has highlighted a growing challenge in European road transport enforcement: the difficulty of navigating overlapping legal frameworks—particularly when EU regulations intersect with international agreements involving non-EU countries.
A commercial vehicle conducting transport between Great Britain and Serbia was stopped by local police in Belgium. The officer questioned the legality of the transport, asserting that the vehicle was operating without the appropriate license or permit. However, the transport in question is covered under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA)1 between the EU and Serbia, which provides specific exemptions from the standard permit system.
COMMUNICATIONS BARRIERS AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT
The situation was further complicated by a language barrier. The police officer did not speak English, while the driver did not speak French—resulting in a communication impasse. Without the ability to explain the legal basis for the transport, the driver was unable to defend the legitimacy of the operation. This underscores the importance of multilingual support in the field, especially in cross-border contexts.
LEGAL CONTEXT: WHAT THE SAA SAYS ?
Under Article 11 of the EU–Serbia SAA, the following applies:
“The Parties hereby agree to grant unrestricted access to Community transit traffic through Serbia and to Serbian transit traffic through the Community…”
Additionally, the agreement calls for non-discrimination and proactive cooperation:
“Each Contracting Party shall take all steps necessary to facilitate road transport to or through the territory of the other Contracting Party.”
Despite this, the transport was halted on grounds that contradict these provisions—indicating either a lack of awareness or misapplication of the legal framework by the local authority.
ANALYSIS: FRAGMENTATION IN THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE
This case is not isolated. It reflects a broader systemic issue within the EU road transport enforcement environment:
On one side, the Mobility Package governs rules such as cabotage, posting of drivers, and rest time regulations—primarily focused on internal EU operations.
On the other side, a multitude of bilateral and multilateral agreements exist between the EU and third countries (e.g., Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey), each with its own specific provisions and exemptions.
This dual-track legal environment often leads to confusion at the enforcement level. Control authorities are expected to be well-versed not only in the evolving body of EU law, but also in the legal obligations arising from international agreements, which are sometimes less visible or inconsistently interpreted on the ground.
CONLUSION: THE CASE FOR SYSTEMATIC CONSULTATION AND TRAINING
This case underscores the urgent need for more consistent training and consultation mechanisms for control authorities. Specifically:
Authorities should receive up-to-date training on both EU-level regulations and non-EU agreements.
A centralised consultation point or legal reference hub could help ensure correct interpretation in real time.
Multilingual support—both human and digital—should be available at major checkpoints to prevent miscommunication and operational standstills.
As the EU continues to maintain and expand transport relationships beyond its borders, enforcement bodies must be equipped to apply a harmonised and legally accurate approach, balancing both internal and external frameworks. Without this, even fully compliant operators risk being wrongly penalised—at great cost to efficiency, trust, and legal certainty.
