Introduction
On 17 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) delivered its judgment in Case C-437/25, FT v Nachalnik Oblasten otdel 'Avtomobilna administratsia' – Gabrovo (ECLI:EU:C:2026:777). The case arose from a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Administrativen sad Gabrovo (Administrative Court, Gabrovo, Bulgaria) by decision of 30 June 2025, received at the Court on 3 July 2025.
At the heart of the dispute was the lawfulness of an administrative fine imposed on FT, a driver who engaged in the cross-border transport of goods using a driver card that did not belong to him. The referring court sought guidance on the interpretation of Articles 27 and 41 of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014, as well as on the principle of proportionality, in the context of a national penalty regime that imposed a flat-rate fine with no possibility of individualisation.
This judgment is of broader institutional significance because it addresses the extent to which member states retain discretion in designing penalty systems for infringements of EU transport rules, and the limits that the principle of proportionality places on such discretion.
Background to the case
The proceedings were brought by FT against the Head of the District Department of Motor Vehicle Administration in Gabrovo, Bulgaria. FT had been issued an administrative fine following the discovery that he had used a driver card belonging to another person while carrying out cross-border transport of goods.
The Okrazhna prokuratura Gabrovo (Gabrovo District Prosecutor's Office) participated in the national proceedings as an intervening party, reflecting the institutional character of the dispute and the public interest dimension of road transport enforcement in Bulgaria.
The referring court, the Administrativen sad Gabrovo, questioned whether the applicable national penalty — structured as a flat-rate fine that left no room for the competent authority or the reviewing court to adjust the sanction to the specific circumstances of the individual case — was consistent with EU law, and in particular with the principle of proportionality.
The EU legal framework at issue
The judgment identifies Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as the central piece of EU legislation under examination. The referring court specifically raised questions concerning Articles 27 and 41 of that Regulation in the context of the use of a driver card belonging to another person and the penalties applicable to such conduct.
The case summary also references Articles 13 and 15 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 646/2012 of 16 July 2012, which lays down detailed rules on fines and periodic penalty payments pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. Article 13(1) of that implementing regulation provides that where the European Commission finds that a certificate holder has intentionally or negligently breached Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 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.
The principle of proportionality, as a general principle of EU law, formed a further axis of the preliminary ruling questions. The referring court was concerned with whether a penalty system that offers no mechanism for individualisation — that is, no capacity to take account of the gravity of the specific infringement, the circumstances of the offender, or any mitigating or aggravating factors — can satisfy the requirements that EU law imposes on member states when they enforce EU regulations through national sanctions.
The preliminary ruling procedure and the parties
The request for a preliminary ruling was made under Article 267 TFEU, which empowers national courts to refer questions of EU law interpretation to the Court of Justice when such interpretation is necessary to enable the national court to give judgment.
Written observations were submitted on behalf of FT, represented by Y. Lalova, advokat, and on behalf of the European Commission, represented by R. Álvarez Vinagre, C. Georgieva and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents. No other parties submitted observations in the written procedure.
The Eighth Chamber, composed of O. Spineanu-Matei as President of the Chamber, C. Lycourgos (Rapporteur) acting as a Judge of the Eighth Chamber, and N. Fenger, Judge, decided after hearing the Advocate General — J. Richard de la Tour — to proceed to judgment without an Opinion. This procedural choice, available to the Court under its Rules of Procedure, indicates that the Chamber considered the questions sufficiently addressed by the written procedure and the existing body of case law.
The core legal question: flat-rate fines and proportionality
The central legal issue in Case C-437/25 concerns the compatibility of a national penalty regime — specifically a flat-rate administrative fine with no possibility of individualisation — with the principle of proportionality as it applies in the enforcement of EU transport law.
The use of a driver card belonging to another person is the specific infringement at issue. Such conduct undermines the integrity of the tachograph system established by Regulation (EU) No 165/2014, which is designed to ensure accurate recording of driving time and rest periods in the interest of road safety and fair competition in the transport sector.
A flat-rate fine, by its nature, applies the same monetary sanction regardless of the particular circumstances of the infringement. The absence of any mechanism for individualisation means that the competent authority cannot, for example, take into account whether the infringement was deliberate or the result of negligence, the duration of the misuse, the driver's personal and financial situation, or any other factor that might bear on the proportionality of the sanction in a given case. The referring court's concern was whether such rigidity is permissible under EU law.
Significance for member state enforcement discretion
EU regulations such as Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 are directly applicable in all member states but typically leave to member states the task of establishing the penalties applicable to infringements. This division of competence means that member states enjoy a degree of legislative discretion in designing their penalty regimes.
However, that discretion is not unlimited. Member states are required to ensure that penalties are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. The principle of proportionality, as a general principle of EU law, requires that the means employed to achieve a legitimate objective do not go beyond what is necessary and appropriate to attain that objective.
The judgment in Case C-437/25 engages directly with the question of where the boundary lies between permissible legislative simplification — such as the use of flat-rate fines for administrative efficiency — and impermissible rigidity that prevents the sanction from being calibrated to the actual gravity of the individual infringement. This is a question of ongoing relevance across many areas of EU law where member states enforce EU obligations through national administrative penalty systems.
Institutional and procedural observations
The case illustrates the functioning of the preliminary ruling mechanism as a channel through which national courts can obtain authoritative guidance on EU law questions that arise in concrete disputes before them. The Administrativen sad Gabrovo's decision to refer the matter to the Court of Justice reflects the court's assessment that the answer to the questions raised was not sufficiently clear from existing EU law to enable it to rule with confidence.
The participation of the European Commission in the written procedure, through its agents, underscores the Commission's institutional role as guardian of the Treaties and its interest in ensuring that EU transport law is applied consistently and correctly across member states.
The decision to proceed without an Advocate General's Opinion, while notable, does not diminish the legal authority of the judgment. The Court retains full jurisdiction to interpret EU law and to provide the referring court with the guidance necessary to resolve the dispute before it.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 September 2026 in Case C-437/25 addresses a practically important question in EU transport law: whether a national flat-rate administrative fine, imposed for the use of a driver card belonging to another person and admitting of no individualisation, is compatible with Articles 27 and 41 of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 and with the principle of proportionality.
The case arises from a Bulgarian enforcement context but carries implications for all member states that rely on fixed-penalty regimes to enforce EU transport rules. It reinforces the principle that member state discretion in designing penalty systems is subject to the overarching requirement that sanctions remain proportionate to the infringement in each individual case.
Legal practitioners, transport operators, enforcement authorities, and national legislators with responsibilities in the field of road transport should be attentive to the guidance provided by this judgment when assessing the design and application of national penalty provisions that implement EU transport law obligations.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2026. — FT v Nachalnik Oblasten otdel „Avtomobilna administratsia“ - Gabrovo. — Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad - Gabrovo. — 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. — Case C-437/25. - Court of Justice of the European Union, European Union
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications