Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)
17 September 2026 ( * )
[para_4]( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Transport – Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 – Articles 27 and 41 – Use of a driver card belonging to another person – Penalty – Flat-rate fine – No possibility of individualisation – Principle of proportionality )
[para_5]In Case C‑437/25,
[para_6]REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Administrativen sad Gabrovo (Administrative Court, Gabrovo, Bulgaria), made by decision of 30 June 2025, received at the Court on 3 July 2025, in the proceedings
FT
[para_8]v
[para_9]Nachalnik Oblasten otdel „Avtomobilna administratsia“ – Gabrovo,
[para_10]intervening parties:
[para_11]Okrаzhna prokuratura Gabrovo,
[para_12]THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),
[para_13]composed of O. Spineanu-Matei, President of the Chamber, C. Lycourgos (Rapporteur), President of the Third Chamber, acting as a Judge of the Eighth Chamber, and N. Fenger, Judge,
[para_14]Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour,
[para_15]Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
[para_16]having regard to the written procedure,
[para_17]after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
[para_18]– FT, by Y. Lalova, advokat,
[para_19]– the European Commission, by R. Álvarez Vinagre, C. Georgieva and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents,
[para_20]having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
[para_21]gives the following
Judgment
[para_23]1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 13 and 15 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 646/2012 of 16 July 2012 laying down detailed rules on fines and periodic penalty payments pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2012 L 187, p. 29), and of the principle of proportionality.
[para_24]2 The request has been made in proceedings between FT and Nachalnik Oblasten otdel „Avtomobilna administratsia“ – Gabrovo (Head of the District Department of Motor Vehicle Administration – Gabrovo (Bulgaria)) concerning the lawfulness of an administrative fine issued to FT, a driver who engaged in the cross-border transport of goods with a driver card that was not his own.
Legal context
European Union law
Implementing Regulation No 646/2012
3 Article 13 of Implementing Regulation No 646/2012 provides:
[para_29]‘1. Where following the decision-making provided for in Section 2, the [European] Commission finds that the certificate holder has intentionally or negligently breached Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ 2008 L 79, p. 1)] or its implementing rules, it may adopt a decision imposing a fine not exceeding 4% of the annual income or turnover of the certificate holder in the preceding business year.
[para_30]2. Where the certificate holder has not terminated the breach at the time of the adoption of the decision referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may, in that decision, impose periodic penalty payments per day not exceeding [2.5%] of the average daily income or turnover of the certificate holder in the preceding business year.
[para_31]These periodic penalty payments may be imposed for a period running from the date of notification of the decision until the day on which the breach is brought to an end.
[para_32]3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, the preceding business year refers to the business year preceding the date of the decision referred to in paragraph 1.
[para_33]4. Fines and periodic penalty payments shall be of an administrative nature.
5. The decision imposing fines and periodic penalty payments shall be enforceable.’
4 Article 15 of that implementing regulation provides:
[para_36]‘1. In determining whether to impose fines and periodic penalty payments and the amount of those fines and payments, the Commission shall be guided by the principles of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness.
[para_37]2. In each case, the Commission shall take into consideration, where relevant, the following circumstances:
[para_38](a) the seriousness and the effects of the breach and in particular, the implications and effects for safety and for the environment of such breach;
[para_39](b) the degree of diligence and cooperation shown by the certificate holder in the detection of the breach and the application of the corrective action, or during the course of the non-compliance procedure or, any obstruction by the certificate holder of the detection of a breach and the conduct of a non-compliance procedure, or any non-compliance by the certificate holder with requests made by the [European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)], the Commission or a national aviation authority in application of this Regulation;
[para_40](c) the good faith of the certificate holder in the interpretation and fulfilment of the obligations connected with certificate holders in accordance with Regulation [No 216/2008] or its implementing rules, or any evidence of wilful deceit on the part of the certificate holder;
[para_41](d) the turnover involved in the case and the economic capacity of the certificate holder concerned;
(e) the need to adopt provisional or urgent measures;
(f) the repetition, frequency or duration of the breach by the certificate holder;
[para_44](g) prior sanctions, including financial penalties, imposed on the same certificate holder.
[para_45]3. In determining the amount of the fine and the periodic penalty payment, the Commission shall take into account any enforcement measures already taken regarding the certificate holder at national level or by the [EASA] and based on the same legal grounds and the same facts.’
Regulation (EU) No 165/2014
[para_47]5 Article 2(2) 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 (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 1) provides:
[para_48]‘In addition to the definitions referred to in paragraph 1, for the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:
[para_49]…
[para_50](d) “tachograph card” means a smart card, intended for use with the tachograph, which allows identification by the tachograph of the role of the cardholder and allows data transfer and storage;
[para_51]…
[para_52](f) “driver card” means a tachograph card, issued by the authorities of a Member State to a particular driver, which identifies the driver and allows for the storage of driver activity data;
[para_53]…’
6 Article 27 of that Regulation states:
[para_55]‘1. The driver card is personal.
[para_56]2. A driver may hold no more than one valid driver card, and is only authorised to use his own personalised driver card. A driver shall not use a driver card which is defective or which has expired.’
7 Article 41 of that regulation provides:
[para_58]‘1. Member States shall, in accordance with national constitutional arrangements, lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties shall be effective, proportionate, dissuasive and non-discriminatory, and shall be in compliance with the categories of infringements set out in Directive 2006/22/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35)].
[para_59]2. The Member States shall notify the Commission of those measures and the rules on penalties by 2 March 2016. They shall inform the Commission of any subsequent change to those measures.’
Directive 2006/22
[para_61]8 Article 2(3a) of Directive 2006/22, as amended by Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 (OJ 2020 L. 249, p. 49) states:
[para_62]‘Each Member State shall organise checks on compliance with Directive 2002/15/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35)], taking into account the risk rating system provided for in Article 9 of this Directive. Those checks shall be targeted at an undertaking if one or more of its drivers have been continuously or seriously infringing Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1)] or [No 165/2014].’
[para_63]9 The table in point 2 of Annex III to Directive 2006/22, as amended by Directive 2020/1057, entitled ‘Groups of infringements against Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Tachograph)’, states that driving with a driver card of which the driver is not the holder is one of the most serious infringements under Regulation No 165/2014.
Regulation (EU) 2016/403
[para_65]10 Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/403 of 18 March 2016 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the classification of serious infringements of the Union rules, which may lead to the loss of good repute by the road transport operator, and amending Annex III to Directive 2006/22 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 8), provides:
[para_66]‘This Regulation establishes a common list of categories, types and degrees of serious infringements of the Union rules in the commercial road transport, as laid down in Annex I to this Regulation, which, in addition to those set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009, may lead to the loss of good repute of a road transport operator.’
[para_67]11 It is apparent, in particular, from Annex I to Regulation 2016/403, that whether a driver exceeding the maximum daily or weekly driving time constitutes a serious, very serious or most serious infringement is dependent on the extent by which the driver exceeded that time. By contrast, according to that annex, driving with a driver card belonging to another person must, in all cases, be classified as falling within the most serious infringements category.
Bulgarian law
[para_69]12 Article 93c(5) of Zakon za avtomobilnite prevozi (Law on road transport) (DV No 82 of 17 September 1999), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘ZavtP’), states:
[para_70]‘The use by a driver of a driver card issued to another person shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of 1 500 Bulgarian leva (BGN) [(approximately EUR 767)].’
[para_71]13 Article 27(5) of Zakon za administrativnite narushenia i nakazania (Law on administrative offences and penalties) (DV No 92 of 28 November 1969), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, provides:
[para_72]‘Other than in the cases provided for by law, it shall also not be permissible to fix a penalty below the minimum amount prescribed for penalties in the form of a fine or a temporary deprivation of the right to pursue a particular occupation or activity.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
[para_74]14 On 28 August 2024, the Head of the District Department of Motor Vehicle Administration – Gabrovo imposed an administrative fine of BGN 1 500 (approximately EUR 767) on FT, under Article 93c(5) of ZavtP, for having, in infringement of Article 27(2) of Regulation No 165/2014, driven, on 26 July 2024, a motor vehicle falling within the scope of that regulation using a driver card issued to another person.
[para_75]15 By a judgment of 2 April 2025, the Rayonen sad Gabrovo (District Court, Gabrovo, Bulgaria) upheld that administrative fine.
[para_76]16 On 13 May 2025, FT brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment before the Administrativen sad Gabrovo (Administrative Court, Gabrovo, Bulgaria), which is the referring court. In his appeal, FT submits, inter alia, that the administrative fine to which he was sentenced is not proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the infringement concerned, since the fact that it is a flat-rate fine prevents the taking into consideration of factors such as the distance actually travelled using someone else’s driver card, the fact that it was a first offence or the fact that the person concerned himself possesses a driver card.
[para_77]17 The referring court notes, in the first place, that Article 93c(5) of ZavtP provides for a penalty fixed at a flat rate in respect of the infringement of which FT is accused, the amount of which exceeds the Bulgarian minimum wage (BGN 1 077) (approximately EUR 550), and the average Bulgarian wage as at the date on which the infringement was allegedly committed and during the first three months of 2025.
[para_78]18 Neither the administrative authority that imposed that fine, nor the court tasked with the assessment of the legality thereof, can reduce the amount of the fine, on a case-by-case basis, in the light of, first, the nature and seriousness of the infringement concerned, and, secondly, the danger posed by that infringement to the general public.
[para_79]19 It follows from Article 27(5) of the Law on administrative offences and penalties, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, that it is not permissible to impose a penalty below the minimum amount prescribed for penalties in the form of a fine or a temporary deprivation of the right to pursue a particular occupation or activity, other than in the cases provided for by law, none of which apply here.
[para_80]20 It is therefore not possible to take into consideration, inter alia, whether the infringement concerned was committed intentionally or by negligence, the moment at which it was committed or the section of road on which it occurred, the fact that the person concerned held a driver card on the date of the infringement, or the reasons why he used a driver card belonging to another person.
[para_81]21 In the second place, the referring court considers that Member States are required to comply with the principle of proportionality, as enshrined in EU law, not only as regards the determination of factors constituting an infringement and the rules concerning the severity of fines, but also as regards the assessment of the factors which may be taken into account in the fixing of a fine in respect of that infringement.
[para_82]22 In those circumstances, the Administrativen sad Gabrovo (Administrative Court, Gabrovo) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
[para_83]‘(1) Is the penalty which Article 93c(5) of [ZavtP] prescribes for the offence of using another person’s driver card compatible with the criteria governing the application and quantification of fines and periodic penalty payments which are laid down in Articles 13 and 15 of [Implementing Regulation No 646/2012], which governs the application of the principle of proportionality to the imposition of fines and periodic penalty payments by the European Commission? Are those penalties compatible with the principle of proportionality within the meaning of Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union, one of the general principles of EU law which the Member States must observe, since the aforementioned provision prescribes a penalty fixed at a flat rate representing a considerable sum for Bulgarian citizens to pay?
[para_84](2) Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 November 2024, Ekostroy (С-61/23, EU:C:2024:974), account being taken of the Court’s findings in paragraph 53 of that judgment that “in those circumstances, the imposition of flat-rate fines or financial penalties for all breaches of certain obligations laid down by law, without adjustment of the amount of the fine or financial penalty in line with the seriousness of the breach, as provided for under the system of penalties at issue in the main proceedings, appears to be disproportionate in the light of the objectives pursued by the EU legislation”, to be interpreted and applied in relation to all of the penalty provisions contained in the administrative law of the Republic of Bulgaria? Account being taken of the foregoing, are provisions of national law which, like Article 93c(5) of [ZavtP], prescribe such a flat rate for penalties to be regarded, in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice cited above, as compatible with the principle of proportionality enshrined in EU law?’
Consideration of the questions referred
Admissibility
[para_87]23 According to settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 17 March 2026, Županijsko državno odvjetništvo , C‑8/24, EU:C:2026:210, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited).
[para_88]24 In the first place, by its first question, the referring court seeks, inter alia, an interpretation of Articles 13 and 15 of Implementing Regulation No 646/2012 and Article 5(4) TEU.
[para_89]25 It should be noted, first, that that regulation concerns air transport and, secondly, that Article 5(4) enshrines the principle of proportionality in EU action and not that of Member States. It follows that those provisions are manifestly inapplicable to the dispute at issue in the main proceedings with the result that the first question is inadmissible in so far as it concerns the interpretation of those provisions (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 July 2023, Lin , C‑107/23 PPU, EU:C:2023:606, paragraphs 64 to 66 and 70).
[para_90]26 In the second place, it is apparent from the second question that the referring court is uncertain, first, whether national provisions under which a flat-rate administrative fine has been imposed in the present case are compatible with the principle of proportionality, as enshrined in EU law, and, secondly, whether provisions of Bulgarian law other than those relevant to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings are compatible with that principle.
[para_91]27 In that connection, it should be noted, first, that the first part of the second question overlaps with the first question, in such a manner that there is no need to answer it separately.
[para_92]28 Secondly, as regards the second part of the second question, it must be borne in mind that the Court’s function in preliminary rulings is to assist in the administration of justice in the Member States and not to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions (see, inter alia, judgment of 15 September 2011, Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya , C‑197/10, EU:C:2011:590, paragraph 18).
[para_93]29 It follows that the second part of the second question is inadmissible.
Substance
[para_95]30 As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it. It is for the Court, in that respect, to extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the order for reference, the points of EU law which require interpretation, having regard to the subject matter of the dispute (judgment of 30 April 2024, M.N. (EncroChat) , C‑670/22, EU:C:2024:372, paragraph 78 and the case-law cited).
[para_96]31 In the present case, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that punishes an infringement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, with a high administrative fine without it being possible, for either the administrative authority that imposed that fine, or the court tasked with assessing its legality, to reduce the amount of that fine in view of the circumstances of the case.
[para_97]32 It follows from the order for reference that the infringement at issue in the main proceedings consists of the use of a driver card belonging to another person, in breach of the prohibition laid down in Article 27 of Regulation No 165/2014.
[para_98]33 In that connection, it should be noted that Article 41 of that regulation provides that Member States are to adopt penalties applicable to infringements of provisions of that regulation that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. That article applies to all penalties imposed by Member States in order to punish infringements of that regulation, whether or not those penalties are criminal, within the meaning of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
[para_99]34 Accordingly, it should be considered that, by its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the principle of proportionality, as given concrete expression in Article 41 of Regulation No 165/2014, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a high fine is imposed on a driver of a vehicle who has breached the prohibition laid down in Article 27 of that regulation, by fitting a driver card belonging to another person into the tachograph of his or her vehicle, without there being any possibility of reducing that fine in view of the particular circumstances of the case.
[para_100]35 In the first place, it must be borne in mind that, in the absence of harmonisation of EU legislation in the field of penalties applicable where conditions laid down by arrangements under that legislation are not complied with, Member States are empowered to choose the penalties which seem to them to be appropriate. They must, however, exercise that power in accordance with EU law and its general principles, and, consequently, in accordance with the principle of proportionality (judgments of 21 November 2024, Ekostroy , C‑61/23, EU:C:2024:974, paragraph 41, and of 11 December 2025, Staatssecretaris Jeugd, Preventie en Sport (Electronic Cigarettes) , C‑665/24, EU:C:2025:960, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).
[para_101]36 The principle of proportionality, given concrete expression in Article 41 of Regulation No 165/2014, requires that the severity of a penalty corresponds to the seriousness of the infringement concerned, in particular, by ensuring a genuinely dissuasive effect. Accordingly, the punitive measures permitted under national legislation must not go beyond the limits of what is necessary to attain the objectives legitimately pursued by that legislation (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 November 2024, Ekostroy , C‑61/23, EU:C:2024:974, paragraph 45, and of 22 January 2026, AK Dlhopolec and Others , C‑590/24, EU:C:2026:41, paragraphs 105 and 107 and the case-law cited).
[para_102]37 That principle of proportionality has to be observed, not only as regards the determination of factors constituting an infringement, but also the determination of the rules concerning the severity of fines and the assessment of the factors which may be taken into account in setting those fines (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 November 2024, Ekostroy , C‑61/23 P, EU:C:2024:974, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).
[para_103]38 In the present case, the Bulgarian legislation established a system of strict liability under which the finding of the facts constituting the infringement concerned is sufficient for the administrative authority to impose a fine of BGN 1 500 (approximately EUR 767).
[para_104]39 Furthermore, the category of persons subject to such a fine is composed, at least for the most part, of natural persons engaged in truck-driving work. It is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the amount of that fine is higher than the average Bulgarian wage. It follows that, subject to verification by the referring court, that fine must be considered to be very high having regard to the average level of professional income of the category of persons that may be subject to such a fine.
[para_105]40 It is also apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that neither the administrative authority responsible for imposing such a fine, nor the court tasked with reviewing its validity, may reduce the amount of that fine in view of the specific circumstances of the case.
[para_106]41 The imposition of a very high fine, without it being possible for the fine to be reduced in view of the particular circumstances of the case, is liable to breach the principle of proportionality, as given concrete expression in Article 41 of Regulation No 165/2014 (see, by analogy, judgment of 22 January 2026, AK Dlhopolec and Others , C‑590/24, EU:C:2026:41, paragraph 112).
[para_107]42 It follows that, subject to verification by the referring court, the amount of the fine at issue in the main proceedings is high enough that the principle of proportionality, as given concrete expression in Article 41 of Regulation No 165/2014, precludes a scenario where there is no possibility for that fine to be reduced in view of the particular circumstances of the case.
[para_108]43 In the second place, as regards, more specifically, the circumstances that may be taken into account in order to adjust the amount of an administrative fine such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it should be noted that it follows from Article 27(2) of Regulation No 165/2014, read together with Annex I to Regulation 2016/403, that the use of a driver card belonging to another person is one of the most serious infringements of Regulation No 165/2014, irrespective of the length of time during which such use occurred. That infringement differs from other infringements of EU law applicable to road transport and, inter alia, from infringements arising where maximum daily or weekly driving times are exceeded, the severity of which varies, in accordance with Annex I, depending on the extent by which those driving times were exceeded.
[para_109]44 Accordingly, the fact that the driver used a driver card belonging to another person during a very limited period cannot constitute a factor leading to a reduction in the amount of the fine which must, in principle, be imposed on him.
[para_110]45 Such an interpretation is supported by the objectives of road safety and improvement of drivers’ working conditions pursued by Regulation No 165/2014 (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 May 2020, Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln (Attestation concerning non-driving days) , C‑96/19, EU:C:2020:353, paragraph 38).
[para_111]46 The purpose or, at the very least, the effect of using a driver card belonging to another person is to prevent the effective monitoring of compliance with the driving and rest times required under EU law. That inability to effectively monitor compliance occurs from the moment a driver card belonging to another person is used, which distinguishes such an infringement from those at issue in the cases giving rise to the judgments of 22 March 2017, Euro-Team and Spirál-Gép (C‑497/15 and C‑498/15, EU:C:2017:229), and of 21 November 2024, Ekostroy (C‑61/23, EU:C:2024:974), in which the Court held, in essence, that the fact that it was not possible to take account of the duration of the infringement concerned when setting the amount of the fine breached the principle of proportionality.
[para_112]47 By contrast, the fact that the person concerned can demonstrate that he or she used the driver card belonging to another person through negligence may, inter alia, be included among the particular circumstances of the case, referred to in paragraph 43 above.
[para_113]48 It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that the answer to the questions referred is that the principle of proportionality, as given concrete expression in Article 41 of Regulation No 165/2014, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a very high fine is imposed on a driver of a vehicle who has breached the prohibition laid down in Article 27 of that regulation, by fitting a driver card belonging to another person into the tachograph of his or her vehicle, without there being any possibility of reducing that fine in view of the particular circumstances of the case.
Costs
[para_115]49 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules:
[para_117]The principle of proportionality, as given concrete expression in Article 41 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,
[para_118]must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a very high fine is imposed on a driver of a vehicle who has breached the prohibition laid down in Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014, by fitting a driver card belonging to another person into the tachograph of his or her vehicle, without there being any possibility of reducing that fine in view of the particular circumstances of the case.
[para_119][Signatures]
[para_120]* Language of the case: Bulgarian.