European law is clear: roadside checks and premises checks serve different purposes
Roadside checks should focus on immediate safety issues, while company records must be verified at the premises of undertakings. However, the speed and efficiency of performing roadside checks as a general audit of the company sometimes leads to their excessive use, undermining legal certainty, fair competition, and the credibility of enforcement across the EU.
In this context, EU law – particularly Directive 2006/22/EC, Annexes A and B – is explicit and makes a strict distinction:
- Roadside checks → quick, random, non-discriminatory spot checks on the road:
- Conducted randomly on roads.
- Focus on immediate, verifiable items: tachographs, driver compliance with driving/rest periods, vehicle safety.
- Designed to ensure road safety and quick enforcement.
In the Article 4 of this Directive, it is stated:
”(..)roadside checks shall be carried out without discrimination. In particular, enforcement officers should not discriminate on any of the following grounds:
(a) country of registration of vehicle;
(b) country of residence of driver;
(c) country of establishment of undertaking;
(d) origin and destination of journey;
(e) type of tachograph: analogue or digital.”
Regarding Annex I, Part A:
“The following points shall, in general, be covered by roadside checks:
(1) daily and weekly driving times, breaks and daily and weekly rest periods; also the preceding days’ record sheets which have to be carried on board the vehicle in accordance with Article 15(7) of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 and/or the data stored for the same period on the driver card and/or in the memory of the recording equipment in accordance with Annex ΙΙ to this Directive and/or on printouts (..)“
- Premises checks → in-depth audits of company records, carried out at the offices of the undertaking or the competent authority:
- Conducted at company premises or competent authority offices.
- Cover long-term compliance: weekly rest periods, two-weekly driving limits, full tachograph records, and contracts along the transport chain.
- Intended to ensure comprehensive legal and operational compliance.
Regarding Annex I, Part B:
“The following points shall be checked at the premises of undertakings, in addition to those set out in Part A:
(1) weekly rest periods and driving times between these rest periods;
(2) observance of the two-weekly limitation of driving times;
(3) record sheets, vehicle unit and driver card data and printouts.
(4) compliance with maximum average weekly working times, breaks and night work requirements set out in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/15/EC;
(5) observance of the obligations of undertakings as regards the payment for drivers’ accommodation and the organization of the work of drivers, in accordance with Article 8(8) and (8a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006.“
Member States may, if appropriate, check on the joint liability of other instigators or accessories in the transport chain, such as shippers, freight forwarders or contractors, if an infringement is detected, including verification that contracts for the provision of transport permit compliance with Regulations (EC) No 561/2006 and (EU) No 165/2014.
This balance ensures both road safety and fair treatment of transport operators.
In theory, roadside and premises checks are clearly separated: roadside checks focus on immediate, on-the-spot safety compliance, while premises checks allow a thorough review of company records and long-term adherence to driving and rest regulations. In practice, however, some enforcement authorities overextend roadside inspections to include documents and records meant for premises checks—often due to resource constraints, pressure for visible results, or misinterpretation of EU law—creating legal uncertainty and disproportionate burdens on operators.
The issue is that the reality of the carrier on the road is very different from the precogitation coming from the law. Enforcement often blurs this distinction.
The French legal puzzle
For a few years, French enforcement authorities have stretched roadside checks far beyond their intended scope, stating that:
“The company should put the driver in a position to bring, by any means, to the agents mentioned at article L. 3315-1 of this Code, proof that it fulfils this obligation with regard to it, during roadside checks”.
As a result, operators are routinely penalized at the roadside for missing documents that are not legally required to be carried, such as hotel invoices or proof of minibus usage. These documents clearly fall under Annex B and should be checked at company premises, not on the road.
This creates several problems:
- Legal uncertainty: operators cannot predict what will be demanded of them during roadside inspections.
- Discrimination: foreign companies are disproportionately affected.
- Credibility issues: EU law loses authority when enforcement practice diverges from its clear rules.
- In about 90% of cases involving foreign companies, penalties were imposed for missing non-mandatory documents such as hotel invoices or minibus usage proofs.
- These are precisely the types of records that should be examined at company premises, not at the roadside.
Roadside checks are highly visible and politically tangible. French controlling authorities may feel pressured to issue fines “on the spot” rather than conducting time-consuming company audits. I have observed that roadside checks are easier to implement with limited resources.
Some enforcement officers may assume that any missing documentation can justify a penalty, confusing immediate compliance (Annex A) with company-level audits (Annex B). Even when companies provide drivers with supporting documents to prove compliance with EU laws, enforcement officers often refuse to evaluate them, claiming that only the court can decide whether the evidence is acceptable.
Carriers are left with no choice but to repeatedly go to court to defend themselves.
Clarification from EC
I raised this issue with the European Commission, stressing that roadside checks in France had effectively turned into premature audits. The Commission confirmed that it had already taken up the matter with the French authorities.
The position is clear: company-level records must be PRIMARILY checked at premises, not at the roadside.
A step forward in France?
Following this dialogue, the French government adopted a new decree on 12 February 2025, aligning national law with Directive 2006/22/EC.
In this respect, French rules clearly distinguish between roadside checks at the roadside and company premises, where full documentation can be properly assessed.
This is a welcome step towards fairer and more harmonized enforcement across Europe.
The new French decree is a positive development, but close monitoring is essential to ensure it is correctly applied in enforcement practices. The European Commission reinforced this point in its recent letter to Move Expert, emphasizing that consistent application of EU legislation is vital for uniform enforcement across the Union.
The Commission also highlighted that all Member States must respect the legal distinction between roadside checks and premises checks.
I will continue to monitor this from a practical perspective to ensure that the enforcement of EU rules in France aligns with the principles of legal certainty and fair competition.
So far, however, the situation has not changed significantly—daily roadside controls continue to address matters that should legally be handled at company premises.
