Recently, at Costaș, Negru și Asociații, we obtained the annulment of a contravention report by which a company was sanctioned with a fine in the amount of 25,000 RON for allegedly failing to update, during the validity period of the UIT code, the information regarding the identification of the road transport vehicle prior to resuming its movement.
Specifically, the petitioner company was sanctioned after a road traffic control identified a vehicle combination consisting of a tractor unit and a trailer belonging to the company, transporting electronic goods for a German company. The driver presented the control authorities with the CMR transport document, as well as the UIT code generated through the RO e-Transport system by the beneficiary of the goods. Upon verification of the transport, the control team found that the identification data of the transport vehicle was not registered, the UIT code presented being generated for different registration numbers. Consequently, it was held against the petitioner that it had failed to update, within the RO e-Transport system and during the validity period of the UIT code, the identification data of the modified transport vehicle prior to resuming its movement.
The control authority sanctioned the petitioner pursuant to Article 13¹ letter c) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 41/2022 establishing the national system for monitoring road transport of goods with high fiscal risk – RO e-Transport.
We challenged the contravention report, arguing that the petitioner was unlawfully sanctioned for alleged non-compliance with Article 8 paragraph (1¹) of GEO no. 41/2022, as it could not be held liable under the legal basis indicated by the control authority. In essence, the transport carried out by the sanctioned company involved electronic goods, as correctly established by the antifraud inspectors. They classified the transport as an international goods transport rather than a transport of high fiscal risk goods, as the transported goods are not included in the list of high fiscal risk goods provided by Order of the President of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration no. 802/2022.
Therefore, the company could not be sanctioned under Article 13¹ paragraph (1) letter c), as this provision strictly refers to the breach of Articles 8 paragraph (1¹), (1³) and (2), Article 11 paragraph (3), and Article 12 of the same ordinance. However, the provision invoked by the antifraud authorities, namely Article 8 paragraph (1¹), states that “by way of exception from the provisions of Article 11 paragraph (3), the transport organizer or transport operator, as the case may be, is obliged to update, during the validity period of the UIT code, the information regarding the identification of the road transport vehicle whenever it is modified, prior to resuming its movement.” These provisions refer to Article 8 of GEO no. 41/2022, which applies exclusively to the transport of high fiscal risk goods. Accordingly, we requested the court to find that the legal classification of the offense in the contravention report was incorrect.
The court upheld our position, admitting the complaint and annulling the contravention report, thereby exempting the petitioner company from payment of the imposed fine of 25,000 RON. Fully consistent with our arguments, the court held that “(…) From the analysis of Articles 8 and 8¹ of GEO no. 41/2022, it results that they govern different types of transport. Thus, Article 8 of GEO no. 41/2022 regulates the transport of high fiscal risk goods, whereas Article 8¹ of GEO no. 41/2022 regulates the transport of goods resulting from intra-Community acquisitions. The provisions of Article 13¹ paragraph (1) letter c) of GEO no. 41/2022 represent the sanctioning basis for breaches of Article 8 paragraph (1¹) concerning the transport of high fiscal risk goods, and not for non-compliance with Article 8¹ concerning international transport of goods. Therefore, the court considers that the petitioner, as transport organizer, cannot be held liable for the act retained by the reporting officer, insofar as in the case of international goods transport the legislator did not impose an obligation to update, during the validity period of the UIT code, the identification data of the road transport vehicle whenever modified, prior to resuming its movement, as it expressly provided for high fiscal risk goods transport.”
The first-instance judgment was upheld on appeal as well, by the Arad County Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal.
The petitioner was represented before the courts by Dr. Cosmin Flavius Costaș, attorney-at-law from the Arad Bar, by attorney Andrei Fătu from de Cluj Bar and by attorney Diana Amelia Jehaliuc, also from the Arad Bar.
Costaș, Negru &Asociații is a civil law firm with offices in Cluj-Napoca, Bucharest and Arad, which provides assistance, legal representation and consultancy in several areas of practice through a team composed of 18 lawyers and consultants. Details regarding legal services and the composition of the team can be found on the website https://www.costas-negru.ro.All rights for the materials published on the company’s website and through social networks belong to Costaș, Negru &Asociații, their reproduction being permitted only for information purposes and with correct and complete citation of the source.
