On 9 November 2023, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑477/22, ARST SpA – Azienda regionale sarda trasporti v others, on the interpretation of Article 3(a), Article 4(j) and Article 6(3) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006. The request has been made in proceedings between ARST SpA – Azienda regionale sarda trasporti(“Arst”), a local public transport undertaking in the Sardinia region, and several of its employees regarding the payment of compensation and/or remuneration determined on the basis of the hours of rest not taken and those worked in excess of the total accumulated driving time during two consecutive weeks.

More particularly, the latter claimed that, due to the working hours imposed by Arst between 11 April 2007 and 6 December 2010, none of them benefited from the regular weekly rest period within Regulation No 561/2006, thereby exceeding the maximum total accumulated driving time during any two consecutive weeks. Since the Tribunale di Oristano (District Court of Oristano) upheld the claim in its entirety, Arst lodged an appeal before the Corte d’appello di Cagliari (Court of Appeal of Cagliari), which was however rejected. Arst, therefore, brought an appeal before the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation; the “referring court”) which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court of Justice two questions for a preliminary ruling.

By the first part of the first question, the referring court asked whether Article 3(a) of Regulation No 561/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of “route covered by the service in question not exceeding 50 kilometres” refers to the distance covered by the journey set by the transport undertaking for regular passenger services that it provides.

According to the Court, the concept refers to a specified route, not exceeding that distance, which links a point of departure to a point of arrival and serves, where appropriate, predetermined intermediary stops to pick up and set down passengers. Such carriage by road of passengers is therefore excluded from the scope of that Regulation No 561/2006 irrespective of whether the drivers concerned cover several of these journeys in the course of the same working day and with the same vehicle.

By the second part of the first question, instead, the referring court asked whether Article 2(1)(b), read in conjunction with Article 3(a), of Regulation No 561/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation applies to all road transport carried out by the undertaking concerned, when the vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on regular services are used, principally, for routes covered by the service in question not exceeding 50 km and, occasionally, for routes covered exceeding such distance.

According to the Court, when an undertaking provides regular passenger transport services where the route covered exceeds 50 km, by vehicles which are normally used for transport services where the route covered does not exceed such distance, such a mixed-use would not make Regulation No 561/2006 applicable to all regular passenger transport services provided by that undertaking. The carriage where the route covered does not exceed 50 km, indeed, is expressly excluded from the scope of that regulation.

By the second question, finally, the referring court asked whether Article 6(3) of Regulation No 561/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of “total accumulated driving time during any two consecutive weeks”, set out in that provision, covers, other than driving time” within the meaning of Article 4(j) of that regulation, any “other work” within the meaning of Article 6(5), carried out by the driver during those two weeks.

According to the Court, in order to calculate the total accumulated driving time during any two consecutive weeks, which shall not exceed 90 hours, in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation No 561/2006, only periods of time that the driver spends driving and which fall within the scope of that regulation must be taken into account. 

Marco Stillo