04 Sep European Court of Justice – august/september 2025
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EU) No 165/2014 – Obligation periodically to inspect tachographs – Exemption – Last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 51(1) thereof – Principle lex posterior mitius – Administrative penalties of a criminal nature – Appeal in cassation – New law having entered into force after the ruling which is the subject of that appeal – Concept of ‘final conviction’ ).
ECJ, 1 August 2025, Case C 544/23, BAJI Trans.
Link
Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is implementing Union law for the purposes of that provision when (i) in accordance with Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006, and Article 41(1) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, it imposes an administrative penalty on the driver of a vehicle because of a failure, by that driver, to fulfil obligations laid down by those regulations and (ii) it subsequently avails itself of the possibility which it is recognised as having under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 165/2014 of exempting certain road transport vehicles from having to comply with such obligations.
The last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that it is capable of being applied to an administrative penalty of a criminal nature which has been imposed on the basis of a rule which, after the imposition of the penalty, has been amended in a way which is more favourable to the person concerned by that penalty, provided that that amendment reflects a change of position regarding the criminal classification of the acts committed by that person or regarding the penalty to be applied.
The last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that a court hearing an appeal in cassation against a judicial decision dismissing the action brought against an administrative fine of a criminal nature and falling within the scope of EU law is, in principle, required to apply a piece of national legislation which is more favourable to the convicted person and which entered into force after the delivery of that judicial decision, irrespective of whether that decision is regarded as final under national law.
