For years, in many transport operations it has almost been taken for granted that if there was a problem with the control document, all eyes would go straight to the carrier. It was almost an automatic reflex: if the vehicle is on the road, responsibility seems to be riding inside the cab.
But that approach falls short.
The regulation governing the administrative control document for public road freight transport already made it clear that both the contractual shipper and the actual carrier were required to formalize the document. What the Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility has now done, through Order TRM/282/2026, published in the BOE on March 28, 2026 and in force since March 29, 2026, is to clarify more precisely who is responsible for each block of data when there are errors, omissions, or inconsistencies.
And that matters. A lot.
Because in October 2026 the control document must necessarily be managed in digital format, and getting to that point with doubts about the responsibility of each party does not seem like the best idea. Law 9/2025 on Sustainable Mobility establishes that this document will be mandatorily digital ten months after its entry into force
First things first: responsibility for the DCA is not “inherited” solely by the carrier
Order FOM/2861/2012 already establishes that the control document must be formalized for each shipment and that both the actual carrier and the contractual shipper are required to document it. In addition, the document must accompany the goods during transport and be kept available to the Inspection authorities for at least one year.
That already dismantles a fairly widespread idea: we are not dealing with a paper document — or now, a digital record — that belongs exclusively to the carrier. The DCA has been a shared obligation from the outset, even if not all the information it contains depends on the same party.
What changes with the new order of March 2026
Here it is worth being precise. The order published in March 2026 does not create a new obligation from scratch, but rather corrects and clarifies Article 7 of Order FOM/2861/2012 in order to clearly define how responsibility for the data in the control document is allocated. The BOE itself explains that it was necessary to correct internal references that had become misaligned after the 2019 reform.
Translated into less legal language: this is not a dramatic shift in the regulation, but it is an important clarification, especially with inspections, incidents, and possible penalties in mind.
How responsibility for the DCA is now allocated
The current wording of Article 7 sets out the allocation as follows:
1. The contractual shipper is responsible for the shipment data
The contractual shipper is responsible for inaccuracies or missing data in sections a), b), c) and d) of Article 6 of the order. In other words, it is responsible for: its own identification, the identification of the actual carrier, the origin and destination of the shipment, and the nature and weight of the goods. It is also responsible for any observations or notes it includes in relation to section h).
2. The actual carrier is responsible for the execution of the transport
The actual carrier is responsible for inaccuracies or missing data in sections e), f) and g) of Article 6. This includes any special transport authorization where applicable, the date the transport is carried out, and the registration number of the vehicle used. Likewise, it is responsible for any observations or notes it includes in relation to section h).
3. There is also a basic shared responsibility
The regulation also maintains one key point: both the contractual shipper and the actual carrier are responsible if the control document is not formalized. They will also be responsible if the document is not carried on board the vehicle, unless the contractual shipper can prove that the document was issued, in which case it will be exempt.
Put simply: one thing is who is responsible for each specific piece of data, and another is who is responsible for ensuring that the document exists and accompanies the transport. On that latter point, responsibility remains shared.
So, if there are errors, who is actually exposed?
It depends on the error.
If an inspection detects a problem in data such as the origin, destination, nature of the goods, or their weight, the focus will fall on the contractual shipper, because those are data points expressly assigned to it by the regulation. If the issue affects the date of transport, the vehicle registration number, or the special transport authorization, responsibility will fall on the actual carrier. And if the problem is that there is no DCA at all or that it is not carried on board, responsibility may extend to both parties.
This nuance is what truly changes the conversation. It is no longer enough to think, “let the driver carry it and that’s it.” Now, traceability regarding who provided which data and at what point becomes much more relevant.
And what about penalties?
Here it is important not to mix things up. The March 2026 order clarifies how responsibility is allocated, but it does not by itself create a new specific penalty framework for each piece of DCA data. The risk of penalties must be read together with the LOTT and the rest of the control and inspection framework.
The Land Transport Regulation Act classifies as a serious infringement the absence, lack of formal completion, or lack of essential data in the mandatory control documentation. In addition, the same law establishes that administrative control documents must be carried on board the vehicle while the service is being performed.
As for the financial range, Article 143 of the LOTT sets out penalties of €801 to €1,000 for certain serious infringements under Article 141, and among them are points 27 and 28 of that article.
That said, there is an important detail here: that specific reference to Article 141.28 is linked to the failure to formalize the consignment note or the ongoing contract in writing when mandatory, not to every possible DCA error. That is why the prudent approach is not to promise a fixed amount for every scenario, but to understand that the risk of penalties does exist and will depend on the type of breach and how exactly it fits into the applicable penalty regime.
The practical conclusion is far less legalistic and much more useful: if it is unclear who was supposed to provide a piece of data, if there is no evidence of when it was added, or if the document is not properly available during an inspection, then the problem is no longer just operational. It may also be sanctionable.
Why this matters even more now
Because the timeline is getting tight.
Law 9/2025 establishes that the administrative control document for public road freight transport must be necessarily digital ten months after the law enters into force. That places the change in October 2026.
And when an obligation moves from paper to a digital environment, one old excuse in the sector disappears: “we’ll fill it in later,” “someone else had it,” or “the other party was dealing with that.” In digital form, either the data is there, or it isn’t. Either it is recorded who provided it, or it isn’t. And at that point, responsibility stops being a theoretical discussion and becomes something quite tangible.
What shippers and carriers should already be reviewing
At this point, continuing to treat the DCA as if it were an isolated task of the carrier is basically buying yourself a ticket to problems later on.
The sensible thing is to review three issues from now on:
First, which data must be provided by each party and who validates each field before transport begins. The regulation already separates this quite clearly.
Second, how to prove that the document has been issued and that it accompanies the transport. Because on that point, responsibility may extend to both parties.
Third, how to leave a trace of contributions, corrections, and validations. Not only to work better, but also to be in a better position to defend yourself if there is an inspection or a later dispute. This is no longer just about “having a document”; it is about being able to prove the documentary process. That is the part that is often forgotten until the problem arrives. The takeaway here is operational, but it fits with the legal allocation of responsibilities established by the regulation itself.
What Orus Logistics can contribute in this new scenario
At Orus Logistics, we are working so that both the contractual shipper and the actual carrier can comply simply and quickly with the part that corresponds to them within the DCA documentary process.
The idea is clear: that each party provides its information, that the process is documented, and that there is traceability as to who added each piece of data and when they did so. Not to fill operations with digital bureaucracy, but quite the opposite: to reduce friction, avoid errors, and arrive better prepared for an environment in which the control document will be mandatorily electronic. This last part is an Orus value proposition, not a literal requirement of the BOE. The regulatory framework does require the digital DCA in October 2026 and defines the responsibilities of each actor.
Do you want to try creating the digital DCA?
Request your exclusive access to the trial.
