1. **Subject of the dispute:** The lawfulness of imposing an administrative-economic fine on a carrier for the absence of a tachograph inspection and calibration record on a freight vehicle that was not equipped with such a device.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Court proceeded from the premise that road transport legislation provides for a driver’s duty to comply with working and rest time regimes; however, the method of recording such a regime depends on the technical equipment of the vehicle.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that Clause 6.3 of Regulation No. 340 allows drivers of vehicles not equipped with tachographs to keep a record of working time using an individual driver’s control book.
– The Court rejected the position of the appellate instance, which considered the presence of a tachograph and the corresponding record mandatory regardless of the actual equipment of the vehicle.
– It is significant that at the time of the inspection, the plaintiff possessed a completed individual control book, which serves as proper evidence of compliance with the requirements regarding the recording of work and rest.
– The Court noted that the interpretation suggesting that the maintenance of an individual control book is permitted only for vehicles with a gross weight of up to 3.5 tons is erroneous.
– Thus, provided that a control book is properly maintained, the absence of a tachograph cannot be a ground for holding a carrier liable under paragraph 3 of part one of Article 60 of the Law “On Road Transport.”
– **Precedent:** The Court directly refers to its position in case No. 620/5897/23 dated July 10, 2025, confirming that it is departing from a narrow interpretation of the norms that limited the use of control books to light trucks only.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the fine was declared unlawful and canceled.
