Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
++++
TRANSPORT - SOCIAL PROVISIONS - HARMONIZATION - DAILY REST PERIOD - OBLIGATORY OBSERVANCE - PERSONS COVERED
( REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL, ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ), FIRST PARAGRAPH )
Summary
THE PHRASE 'SHALL HAVE HAD ... A ... REST PERIOD' IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 543/69 OF 25 MARCH 1969 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE PROVISIONS ON DAILY REST MUST BE OBSERVED BOTH BY CREW MEMBERS THEMSELVES, WHO ARE REQUIRED TO STOP ALL ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 14 OF THE REGULATION FOR THE MINIMUM PERIOD LAID DOWN, AND BY THE EMPLOYER RUNNING A ROAD TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING, WHO IS REQUIRED TO TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO PERMIT THE CREW MEMBERS TO HAVE THE DAILY REST PERIOD LAID DOWN .
Parties
IN CASE 69/74
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE TRIBUNAL DE POLICE DE MONS FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
AUDITEUR DU TRAVAIL AT THE TRIBUNAL DE MONS
V
1 . JEAN-PIERRE CAGNON, DRIVER, RESIDING AT AMIENS,
2 . JEAN-PAUL TAQUET, TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT AMIENS,
Subject of the case
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ), FIRST PARAGRAPH, OF REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 MARCH 1969 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT ( OJ L 77, 1969, P . 49 ),
Grounds
1 BY JUDGMENT DATED 6 SEPTEMBER 1974, FILED AT THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT ON 18 SEPTEMBER 1974, THE TRIBUNAL DE POLICE DE MONS REQUESTED A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 MARCH 1969 ( OJ L 177, 1969 ) ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT .
2 THE QUESTION AROSE IN POLICE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH A COACH DRIVER WAS CHARGED WITH NOT HAVING TAKEN, AS A CREW MEMBER ENGAGED IN THE CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS, THE DAILY REST REFERRED TO IN THE AFOREMENTIONED FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ).
3 THE DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT ONLY EMPLOYERS HAD TO OBSERVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR DAILY REST AND NOT CREW MEMBERS OF ROAD VEHICLES .
4 THE COURT IS REQUESTED FOR THIS PURPOSE TO RULE AS TO THE MEANING WHICH MUST BE GIVEN TO THE WORDS 'SHALL HAVE HAD ... A ... REST PERIOD '.
5 THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 543/69 PROVIDES 'EVERY CREW MEMBER ENGAGED IN THE CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS SHALL HAVE HAD, DURING THE TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR PERIOD PRECEDING ANY TIME HE IS PERFORMING ANY ACTIVITY COVERED BY ARTICLE 14 ( 2 ) ( C ) OR ( D ): A DAILY REST PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN TEN CONSECUTIVE HOURS, WHICH SHALL NOT BE REDUCED DURING THE WEEK ...'.
6 ARTICLE 14 ( 2 ) ( C ) AND ( D ) REFERS TO 'DRIVING PERIODS' AND 'OTHER PERIODS OF ATTENDANCE AT WORK '.
7 THE THIRD AND TENTH RECITALS OF REGULATION NO 543/69 SHOW THAT THE REGULATION HAS AMONG OTHER OBJECTIVES 'TO IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY' FOR WHICH PURPOSE IT IS DESIRABLE 'TO LAY DOWN THE MINIMUM DURATION OF AND OTHER CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE DAILY AND WEEKLY REST PERIODS OF CREW MEMBERS '.
8 SUCH AN OBJECTIVE WOULD NOT BE ACHIEVED IF THE PROVISIONS ENACTED IN RELATION TO DAILY AND WEEKLY REST APPLIED ONLY TO THE EMPLOYER RUNNING THE ROAD TRANSPORT SERVICE, AND DID NOT LIKEWISE APPLY TO CREW MEMBERS BY REQUIRING THEM TO HAVE IN FACT RESTED FOR THE PRESCRIBED
MINIMUM PERIOD .
9 FOR THE PRECISE PURPOSE OF ENSURING THAT THIS REQUIREMENT IS OBSERVED, ARTICLE 14 OF THE SAID REGULATION PROVIDES THAT CREW MEMBERS SHALL CARRY AN INDIVIDUAL CONTROL BOOK .
10 AS A RESULT THE PHRASE 'SHALL HAVE HAD ... A ... REST PERIOD' IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 543/69 OF 25 MARCH 1969 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE PROVISIONS ON DAILY REST MUST BE OBSERVED BOTH BY CREW MEMBERS THEMSELVES, WHO ARE REQUIRED TO STOP ALL ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 14 OF THE REGULATION FOR THE MINIMUM PERIOD LAID DOWN, AND BY THE EMPLOYER RUNNING A ROAD TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING, WHO IS REQUIRED TO TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO PERMIT THE CREW MEMBERS TO HAVE THE DAILY REST PERIOD LAID DOWN .
Decision on costs
11 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .
12 SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE, IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, A STEP IN THE ACTION BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT, COSTS ARE A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
Operative part
THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE TRIBUNAL DE POLICE DE MONS BY JUDGMENT OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1974, HEREBY RULES :
THE PHRASE 'SHALL HAVE HAD ... A ... REST PERIOD' IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 543/69 OF 25 MARCH 1969 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE PROVISIONS ON DAILY REST MUST BE OBSERVED BOTH BY CREW MEMBERS THEMSELVES, WHO ARE REQUIRED TO STOP ALL ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 14 OF THE REGULATION FOR THE MINIMUM PERIOD LAID DOWN, AND BY THE EMPLOYER RUNNING A ROAD TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING, WHO IS REQUIRED TO TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURE TO PERMIT THE CREW MEMBERS TO HAVE THE DAILY REST PERIOD LAID DOWN .
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy