Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2010:238
Date: 2010-04-29
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy;Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 1. Transport – Road transport – Social provisions – Period of work other than driving time – Rest period (Council Regulations No 3820/85, Arts 1, para. 5, and 8(3) and (6), and No 3821/85, Art. 15) 2. Transport – Road transport – Social provisions – Period of work other than driving time – Rest period (Council Regulations No 3820/85, Art. 1, para. 5, and 8(7), and No 3821/85, Art. 15) 1. The concept of ‘operating centre’, featuring in paragraph 21 et seq. of the judgment in Case C-297/99 Skills Motor Coaches and Others, when it comes to classifying, in light of the provisions of Regulations No 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, the time corresponding to the journey made by a driver to travel from his home to the place where he is to take over a vehicle fitted with recording equipment, must be defined as the place to which the driver is actually attached, namely the transport undertaking facilities from which he usually carries out his service and to which he returns at the end of that service, in the normal exercise of his functions and without complying with specific instructions from his employer. (see paras 20, 31, operative part 1) 2. Whether the driver concerned drives himself to the place where he must take over a vehicle fitted with recording equipment or whether he is driven to that place by someone else has no bearing on the classification of the travelling time in the light of the concept of ‘rest’ within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Regulation No 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport. In this connection, first, Article 8(7) of Regulation No 3820/85 makes the option for a driver to take his daily rest in a vehicle subject to the condition that that vehicle be fitted with a bunk and be stationary. Secondly, it would be contrary to the objective of road safety to distinguish between whether or not the driver concerned drives himself to a place where he is to take over a vehicle in which recording equipment is installed where he must drive that vehicle on arrival. The state of tiredness of the driver which may endanger that objective may result not only from actually driving a vehicle but also from the conditions in which the journey takes place. (see paras 33-35, operative part 2)