From 1 July 2026, further changes introduced by the EU Mobility Package will significantly extend the scope of social regulations applicable to road transport operations. One of the most common questions concerns businesses carrying their own goods internationally using vans with a maximum permissible mass of up to 3.5 tonnes, where transport is not their main business activity.

The question we increasingly receive is:

If a business owner drives abroad in a 3.5-tonne van carrying their own goods to a customer and does not provide transport services, are they required to use a tachograph?

The answer is not straightforward and cannot be determined solely by the fact that the goods being transported belong to the business itself.

Extension of Regulation (EC) No. 561/2006

Under Article 2(1)(aa) of Regulation (EC) No. 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, from 1 July 2026 the rules will also apply to international carriage of goods and cabotage operations carried out by vehicles or combinations of vehicles with a maximum permissible mass exceeding 2.5 tonnes.

As a result, businesses using vehicles between 2.5 and 3.5 tonnes may become subject not only to the obligation to install tachographs but also to rules concerning:

• maximum driving periods;
• mandatory breaks;
• rest periods.

However, this does not mean that every international journey performed by such a vehicle will automatically fall within the scope of these regulations.

Exemption Under Article 3(ha) of Regulation No. 561/2006

The Regulation provides for an exemption.

According to Article 3(ha) of Regulation No. 561/2006, the rules do not apply to vehicles with a maximum permissible mass exceeding 2.5 tonnes but not exceeding 3.5 tonnes (including trailers or semi-trailers) used for carrying goods where all three of the following conditions are met:

1. the transport operation is not carried out for remuneration;
2. the transport is performed for the company’s or driver’s own purposes;
3. driving the vehicle is not the main activity of the person driving it.

A review of this provision shows that EU legislation does not make the exemption dependent solely on the fact that a business is transporting its own goods. All three conditions must be satisfied simultaneously. Failure to meet even one of them means that the full requirements of the Regulation may apply.

Non-Commercial Transport Does Not Simply Mean “No Transport Business”

In practice, the greatest uncertainty concerns the first condition: whether the transport is not carried out for remuneration.

Businesses often assume that if they do not provide transport services to third parties, their transport operations automatically qualify as non-commercial. However, this interpretation may be too broad.

The concept of non-commercial transport cannot be assessed solely by reference to the company’s business activity codes or the absence of a transport licence. Each case requires an examination of:

• the actual nature of the transport operation;
• its economic purpose;
• whether transport constitutes an independent service or merely an ancillary activity supporting the company’s main business.

Transport for Own Purposes Requires an Individual Assessment

The second condition—whether the transport is performed for the company’s own purposes—is equally important.

It is not sufficient to establish that the goods belong to the business. It must also be assessed whether:

• the transport serves only the company’s own business activities;
• the company is not effectively carrying out transport services on behalf of another entity.

This assessment may require reviewing:

• sales documentation;
• delivery terms;
• allocation of transport costs;
• the company’s operational structure.

The Driver’s Main Occupation – An Often Overlooked Requirement

The third condition is frequently underestimated: driving the vehicle must not constitute the driver’s main occupation.

Contrary to a common assumption, the fact that the driver is the owner of the business does not automatically mean this requirement is satisfied.

The assessment must focus on the person’s actual responsibilities. If driving is occasional and secondary to commercial, manufacturing or service activities, the argument for applying the exemption will be much stronger than in a situation where the person’s primary professional activity consists of regularly performing international transport operations.

What Information Must Be Verified?

From a practical advisory perspective, it is incorrect to provide a definitive answer solely on the basis that a business owner is “carrying their own goods”.

The following factors should be examined first:

• the maximum permissible mass of the vehicle and any trailer;
• the nature of the business activity;
• the type of goods transported;
• the legal basis for the transport;
• how transport costs are accounted for with the recipient;
• the frequency of such journeys;
• the scope of duties performed by the driver.

Only after analysing these factors is it possible to correctly assess whether the conditions of Article 3(ha) of Regulation No. 561/2006 are fulfilled.

The Importance of the Definition of “Transport for Own Purposes” Under Polish Law

An important interpretative issue arises because Regulation (EC) No. 561/2006 refers to transport carried out for the company’s or driver’s own purposes but does not provide a specific legal definition of this concept.

At the same time, the Polish Road Transport Act defines:

• non-commercial road transport (“transport for own purposes”);
• non-commercial international road transport.

This raises the question of whether these Polish definitions may influence the interpretation of Article 3(ha) of Regulation No. 561/2006.

The answer is not entirely clear.

Due to the principle of EU law supremacy and direct application, definitions contained in national legislation cannot independently determine the scope of application of an EU regulation or expand or restrict its meaning.

However, this does not mean they are entirely irrelevant. They may have practical significance in proceedings conducted by Polish authorities and administrative courts, which may refer to national provisions when assessing a particular situation.

Authorities in other EU Member States will interpret the Regulation independently under EU law and are not bound by definitions adopted in Polish legislation.

Therefore, when assessing whether the exemption under Article 3(ha) applies, it may also be useful to examine factors referred to in Article 4 of the Polish Road Transport Act, including:

• whether the vehicle is driven by the entrepreneur or their employee;
• whether the entrepreneur has legal control over the vehicle;
• whether the transported goods belong to the entrepreneur or are connected with their business activity;
• whether transport is ancillary to the main business activity.

However, these factors do not replace the conditions set out in Article 3(ha) of the Regulation—they only support the overall assessment.

Particular caution is required when comparing the requirement under Polish law that transport for own purposes must be ancillary to the entrepreneur’s main business activity with the EU requirement that driving must not be the driver’s main occupation.

Although both concepts aim to exclude businesses for which transport is only secondary, they address different issues. The national rule focuses on the nature of the entrepreneur’s business, while the EU regulation focuses on the actual duties of the individual driver.

Therefore, satisfying the definition of transport for own purposes under Polish law does not automatically guarantee exemption under Article 3(ha) of Regulation No. 561/2006.

Conclusion

The changes effective from 1 July 2026 do not mean that every entrepreneur transporting their own goods in a van up to 3.5 tonnes will automatically be required to use a tachograph.

At the same time, it would be equally incorrect to assume that simply not providing transport services automatically excludes the application of Mobility Package rules.

The possibility of relying on the exemption under Article 3(ha) of Regulation No. 561/2006 requires a detailed assessment of the business model and confirmation that all statutory conditions are met simultaneously.

Only such an analysis allows a business to determine its obligations correctly and reduce the risk of its position being challenged during a roadside inspection.

Article 3(ha) was introduced specifically to prevent businesses whose main activity is not transport from being subject to the full social rules applicable to professional carriers. For this reason, the interpretation of this provision should take into account the long-established concept of transport for own purposes under Polish law, while recognising that national definitions cannot replace the requirements arising from EU legislation.

Further guidance and answers to related questions are also available on the website of the Polish Road Transport Inspectorate (GITD).

Author: Ewa Sławińska-Ziaja
Legal Counsel, Trans Lawyers

www.translawyers.eu