Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:838
Date: 2023-11-09
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;External relations;Oils and fats;Commercial policy;Social Policy;Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Anonymised version 
Translation C-477/22 – 1 
Case C-477/22 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
15 July 2022 
Referring court: 
Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
12 May 2022 
Appellant: 
ARST S.p.A. – Azienda regionale sarda trasporti 
Respondents: 
TR 
OS 
EK 
UN 
RC 
RS 
OA 
ZB 
HP 
WS 
IO 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 5. 2022 – CASE C-477/22 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
TK 
ME 
SK 
TF 
TC 
ND 
  
THE CORTE SUPREMA DI CASSAZIONE 
SEZIONE LAVORO (SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION, ITALY, 
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION) 
[…] 
gives the following 
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER 
in the appeal […] brought by: 
ARST S.p.A – AZIENDA REGIONALE SARDA TRASPORTI, […] 
– appellant – 
v 
TR, OS, EK, UN, RC, RS, OA, ZB, HP, […] 
– respondents –  
and v 
WS, IO, TK, ME, SK, TF, TC, ND, […] 
– respondents –  
against judgment No […] of the CORTE D’APPELLO di CAGLIARI (Court of 
Appeal, Cagliari, Italy), filed on 10 March 2016 […]; 
[…] [standard wording] 
GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION 
AZIENDA REGIONALE SARDA TRASPORTI 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS AND RELEVANT 
FACTS 
1. The company ARST S.p.A is a local public transport undertaking in the 
Sardinia region. It operates passenger transport services in the region and is 
controlled by the regional administration. 
2. WS and the other workers acting as respondents in this case (‘the workers’) 
are employees of ARST, working as drivers of road passenger transport vehicles. 
All of the workers are employed at the ARST depot located in the municipality of 
Abbasanta. 
3. On 5 September 2011 the workers initiated legal proceedings before the 
Tribunale di Oristano (District Court, Oristano), Italy, alleging a breach of 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road 
transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) 
No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (‘the 
regulation’). 
4. Specifically, the workers alleged that in the period between 11 April 2007 
(the date of entry into force of the regulation) and 6 December 2010, each of 
them, because of the shifts imposed by the employer, did not enjoy the ‘regular’ 
weekly rest period (defined in Article 4(h) of the Regulation as a rest period of at 
least 45 hours), with a total of 953.30 hours of rest not taken, and had exceeded 
the maximum driving time per two-week period of 90 hours, as laid down in 
Article 6(3) of the Regulation, by a total of 752 hours. 
5. They asked the District Court to order the employer, ARST S.p.A, to pay 
them compensation and/or reparation determined on the basis of the hours of rest 
not taken and the hours worked in excess of the abovementioned total driving 
time, in a total amount calculated as EUR 13 839.60 for each driver. 
6. In support of their claim, the workers submitted that they follow a shift 
rotation that is identical for each of them, on the basis of which the hours of rest 
not taken and excess driving were calculated – as illustrated in Annexes ‘A’ and 
‘B’ to the application respectively – as being the same for each driver. 
7. The District Court upheld the claim in its entirety (reducing the amount of 
compensation by 50% for only the workers TF and UN, due to their more limited 
period of work as drivers). 
8. ARST S.p.A. lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Cagliari. 
9. The Court of Appeal obtained the complete schedule of the actual shifts 
worked by each driver during the period in question from ARST S.p.A., and 
reduced the amount the employer had been ordered to pay, recalculating the 
compensation individually, on the basis of the presence on duty. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 5. 2022 – CASE C-477/22 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
10. That court dismissed the remainder of the appeal brought by ARST S.p.A. 
11. It held that there was no foundation for ARST S.p.A.’s defence, according to 
which the case at hand comes within the situation described in Article 3(a) in 
which the regulation does not apply (‘vehicles used for the carriage of passengers 
on regular services where the route covered by the service in question does not 
exceed 50 kilometres’). 
12. ARST S.p.A. based that argument on the fact that only on some shifts (and, 
in that case, only once or, very rarely, twice) did the drivers cover routes of more 
than 50 km. 
13. ARST S.p.A had also asserted that since March 2009, two shift regimes had 
been established, supported by the trade unions and followed by the workers on a 
rotating basis: one of nine weeks, consisting of shifts covering more than 50 km, 
during which the rest periods stated in the regulation were applied, and the other 
of ten weeks, consisting of shifts covering less than 50 km, during which the 
regulation was not applied. 
14. In rejecting those defence arguments, the appeal court stated that the sheets 
relating to each ‘shift-route’ showed that in each shift, the driver travelled more 
than 50 km: in some cases, that distance was covered without making intermediate 
stops, while in others, the distance between one stop and another was less than 50 
km, but the overall journey was still much longer. 
15. The Court of Appeal added that in that case it was not even clear what the 
route terminal was, since the drivers had to reach more than one in the course of 
the working day […] [examples of route terminals]. 
16. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, a ‘route’ in non-urban transport 
identifies the total journey travelled by the driver during the working day. The 50-
km limit excludes only urban drivers covering short, frequent routes from 
application of the regulation. 
17. The appeal court also rejected ARST S.p.A.’s argument that only the time 
spent by the driver behind the wheel should be taken into account for the purpose 
of verifying compliance with the permitted two-week driving time limit referred 
to in Article 6(3) of the regulation. 
18. It held that the maximum two-weekly limit of 90 hours stated in Article 6(3) 
referred to the total ‘driving time’. 
19. The Court of Appeal held that, according to the definition in Article 4(k) of 
the regulation, the ‘daily driving time’ means the total accumulated driving time 
between two daily rest periods (or between a daily rest period and a weekly rest 
period), while the actual duration of driving activity is defined by Article 4(j) as 
the ‘driving time’. From those definitions, the Court drew the conclusion that the 
daily driving time coincides with the daily work shift. 
AZIENDA REGIONALE SARDA TRASPORTI 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
20. ARST S.p.A. brought an appeal against the appeal judgment before the 
Court of Cassation, asserting two separate grounds of appeal to challenge the 
Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the term ‘route’, as defined in Article 3(a) of 
the regulation, and of the phrase ‘total accumulated driving time during any two 
consecutive weeks’, as stated in Article 6(3) of the regulation. The workers 
opposed that appeal by lodging two separate cross-appeals. 
THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW 
1. ARST S.p.A.’s appeal requires this Court to interpret Regulation (EC) 
No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on 
the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and 
amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and 
repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) (‘the 
regulation’). 
2. The amendments to that regulation introduced by Regulation (EU) 
2020/1054 do not apply for the period to which the case relates (April 2007 – 
December 2010). 
3. It is not disputed that the present case comes within the scope of the 
regulation within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) thereof, since ARST S.p.A. is 
engaged in the carriage of passengers by road using vehicles which are 
constructed or permanently adapted for carrying more than nine persons including 
the driver, and are intended for that purpose. Transport is carried out within the 
territory of the EU (in the Italian region of Sardinia). 
4. The two questions of interpretation submitted to this Court concern the 
following respective issues: 
— Article 3(a) of the Regulation, which states that: 
‘This Regulation shall not apply to carriage by road by: 
(a) vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on regular services where the 
route covered by the service in question does not exceed 50 kilometres’; 
— Article 6(3) of the Regulation, which states that: 
‘The total accumulated driving time during any two consecutive weeks shall not 
exceed 90 hours.’ 
5. There are no relevant provisions of national law. 
6. In Italian law, D.Lgs 19 novembre 2007 n. 234 (Legislative Decree No 234 
of 19 November 2007), which entered into force for employees on 1 January 
2008, implemented Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 5. 2022 – CASE C-477/22 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
performing mobile road transport activities. No breaches of that legislation have 
been reported. 
7. Nevertheless, L. 14 febbraio 1958, n. 138 (Law No 138 of 14 February 
1958) continues to regulate the working hours of the staff of public passenger 
transport vehicles operating on non-urban lines in cases where the exemption 
under Article 3(a) of the regulation applies. 
FIRST QUESTION REFERRED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
1 The first question relates to the interpretation of Article 3(a) of the regulation. 
2 It is undisputed in this case that the road transport activities carried out by ARST 
S.p.A. are a ‘regular passenger service’, according to the definition provided in 
Article 4(n) of the Regulation; this case concerns a service for the carriage of 
passengers open to all at specified intervals along specified routes, with 
passengers being able to get on and off at predetermined stopping points. 
3 The question put to this Court arises from the fact that ARST S.p.A. operates the 
service on several different routes and the driver covers more than one route on 
the same working day and using the same vehicle. 
4 The company ARST S.p.A. maintains that the ‘route’ – to which the exemption 
threshold of a maximum of 50 km refers – is the route of each individual journey 
and cannot be cumulated with that of other journeys. The two lower courts, on the 
other hand, upheld the argument asserted by the workers, and added together the 
kilometres covered by all the journeys driven by the driver in the same working 
day to calculate the ‘route’. 
5 The Court stated that the judgment given by the Court of Justice on 9 September 
2021 in Case C-906/19, in relation to the request for a preliminary ruling on the 
interpretation of Article 3(a) of the regulation referred by the Cour de cassation 
(Court of Cassation) of France held that (paragraphs 32 and 38 of that judgment) 
the expression ‘vehicles used’ for the carriage of passengers on ‘regular services’ 
where the route covered by the service in question does not exceed 50 kilometres 
relates only to vehicles used exclusively for such transport (unless the vehicle is 
used for that purpose only occasionally), so that the regulation applies to vehicles 
used for routes of both less than and more than 50 kilometres. 
6 The case examined by the Court of Justice concerned the obligation of the driver 
of the vehicle to insert the driver card in the recording equipment, which was also 
required on days when the vehicle was used for the transport of passengers on 
regular scheduled services where the route does not exceed 50 km. 
7 In the present case, however, it is the very definition of the vehicle’s ‘route’ that is 
in dispute, because, as stated above, drivers cover different journeys using the 
same vehicle on the same working day. 
AZIENDA REGIONALE SARDA TRASPORTI 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
8 There is therefore doubt as to whether the term ‘route’ used in Article 3(a) of the 
regulation refers to the journey set by the transport undertaking for the purposes of 
payment of the ticket, as would seem to be inferred from the literal reference in 
Article 3(a) of the regulation to the ‘regular’ route (‘… regular services where the 
route …’), or, rather, whether it refers to the kilometres travelled by a driver on 
board the vehicle during a working day, even if that covers several journeys, as 
would appear to be required by the purpose of the regulation, to ‘improve social 
conditions for employees who are covered by it, as well as to improve general 
road safety’. 
9 Other solutions are also conceivable, such as the maximum distance travelled by 
the vehicle from the starting point. This is suggested by recital 24, which indicates 
the vehicles exempt from application of the regulation under Article 3(a) – (as 
stated in Article 15 of the regulation, drivers of vehicles governed by national 
rules) – as ‘vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on regular services where 
the route covered does not exceed 50 km’. 
10 In any event, in the present case – whatever the interpretation of the term ‘route’ – 
it is not disputed that the company operates regular passenger services on certain 
journeys exceeding 50 km. The Court must therefore establish whether the 
exemption under the regulation may be applied to individual ARST S.p.A. 
vehicles (those used exclusively for passenger transport on routes of less than 50 
kilometres) or whether ARST S.p.A.’s entire transport service comes within the 
scope of the regulation because it is also carried out using vehicles used for 
journeys exceeding 50 kilometres. 
11 The first question referred to the Court of Justice is as follows: 
‘Must Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social 
legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) 
No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 3820/85 be interpreted as meaning that the term ”route” not exceeding 50 
kilometres refers to the kilometres covered by the journey (line) identified by the 
transport undertaking for payment of the ticket, or to the total number of 
kilometres covered by the driver in the daily work shift, or to the maximum 
distance on the road reached by the vehicle in relation to the starting point 
(radius); or, in any event, by means of what other criterion should the kilometres 
of the route be calculated? 
In any event, may the undertaking organising the transport be exempt from 
application of the regulation in respect of those vehicles it uses exclusively to 
cover journeys of less than 50 km, or is the undertaking’s entire transport service 
subject to application of the regulation, by reason of the fact that it uses other 
vehicles to cover journeys exceeding 50 km?’ 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 5. 2022 – CASE C-477/22 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
SECOND QUESTION REFERRED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
12 The second question submitted to this Court concerns the definition of ‘driving 
time’ in Article 6(3) of the regulation. 
13 The company ARST S.p.A. is arguing that the maximum two-week driving time 
refers only to actual driving activity. The workers, whose argument was upheld by 
both lower courts, assert that the duration of the entire work shift should be 
considered. 
14 The Court states that Article 4 of the regulation contains three definitions of 
‘periodo di guida’ (driving time/driving period): 1 
under point (k), the ‘daily driving time’ (‘periodo di guida giornaliero’) (the total 
accumulated driving time between the end of one daily rest period and the 
beginning of the following daily rest period or between a daily rest period and a 
weekly rest period); 
under point (l), the ‘weekly driving time’ (‘periodo di guida settimanale’) (the 
total accumulated driving time during a week); 
under point (q), the ‘driving period’ (‘periodo di guida’) (the accumulated driving 
time from when a driver commences driving following a rest period or a break 
until he or she takes a rest period or a break. The driving period may be 
continuous or broken). 
15 Lastly, Article 4(j) defines ‘tempo di guida’ (‘driving time’) as the duration of 
driving activity recorded (automatically or semi-automatically by the recording 
equipment as defined in Annex I and Annex IB to Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, 
or manually as required by Article 16(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85). 
16 According to the arguments put forward by ARST S.p.A., the ‘driving period’ 
(‘periodo di guida’) is nothing more than the sum of the ‘driving times’ (‘tempi di 
guida’). 
17 Recital 17 seems to bear this out. According to that recital, in order to improve 
social conditions for employees who are covered by it, as well as to improve 
general road safety, the regulation lays down provisions on maximum ‘driving 
times’ (‘tempo di guida’) per day, per week and per period of two consecutive 
weeks. 
18 In the same vein, Article 6(4) of the regulation states that daily and weekly driving 
times include all ‘driving’ time both on the territory of the Community or of a 
third country. 
 
1  Translator’s note: The terms ‘driving time’/‘driving period’ and ‘tempo di guida’/‘periodo di 
guida’ are used inconsistently as between the Italian and English language versions of the 
regulation. 
AZIENDA REGIONALE SARDA TRASPORTI 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
19 However, Article 6(5) states that a driver must record as ‘other work’ any time 
spent as described in Article 4(e) (namely the activities other than driving 
included within the definition of working time in Article 3(a) of Directive 
2002/15/EC and any work carried out for the same or another employer, within or 
outside the transport sector), as well as any time spent driving a vehicle used for 
commercial operations not falling within the scope of that regulation and any 
periods of ‘availability’, as defined in Article 15(3)(c) of Regulation (EEC) 
No 3821/85, since the last daily or weekly rest period. 
20 It is unclear whether such ‘other work’ counts towards the calculation of the two-
weekly driving time limit. 
21 The interpretation applied by the courts that have already examined the case 
identifies the driving period (periodo di guida) with the daily work shift. That 
interpretation is based on the reference in the definition of ‘daily driving time’ 
(‘periodo di guida giornaliero’) (Article 4(k) of the regulation) to the period 
between two daily rest periods and on the separate definition in Article 4 of the 
regulation of ‘driving time’ (‘tempo di guida’) – namely, the recorded driving 
activity – and ‘driving period’ (‘periodo di guida’), so that the latter would appear 
to designate a wider time interval. 
22 The second question referred to the Court of Justice is as follows: 
‘Must Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social 
legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) 
No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 3820/85 be interpreted as meaning that “the total accumulated driving time 
during any two consecutive weeks” consists of the sum of the “driving times” for 
the two weeks – according to the definition in Article 4(j) above – or does it also 
include other activities and, in particular, the entire working shift worked by the 
driver during the two weeks, or all the ‘other work’ referred to in Article 6(5)?’ 
ON THOSE GROUNDS 
The Court, having regard to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, requests that the Court of Justice of the European Union give a 
preliminary ruling on the questions of interpretation of European Union law set 
out in paragraphs 11 and 22 above. 
[…] [closure and standard wording] 
Rome, […] 9 February 2021. 
THE PRESIDENT