European Court of Justice
| Author | J. A. Coutts |
| Published date | 01 April 2002 |
| Date | 01 April 2002 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201830206600208 |
| Subject Matter | European Court of Justice |
European
Court
of
Justice
European
Ruling
on
Driving
and
Rest Periods of
Coach Drivers
Criminal
Proceedings
Against
Skills
Motor
Coaches
and
others
[2001]
RTR
305
Acompany operating passenger coaches,
and
three of its drivers, were
prosecuted in the Nottingham Magistrates' Court, charged with offences
under
the Transport Act 1968
and
the EC Regulations relating to drivers'
hours
and
rest periods in vehicles which were required to carry tacho-
graphic equipment to make
and
keep tachographic records. The magis-
trates' court referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a
preliminary ruling on the proper interpretation of the relevant legisla-
tion
and
Regulations. The company, which operated
both
regular
and
charter services, requires its drivers to take over the driving of its
vehicles at various points at which it operated, so
that
adriver may have
to join his tachographic-equipped vehicle a considerable distance from
his home, or perhaps abroad. The company permits the driver to make
his
own
arrangements for travel between his
home
and
the pick-up
point
and
back to his home
when
his driving period is over;
and
the time
taken in each case is counted as time for which he will be paid. There
will be no tachographic record of any driving to be done to reach the
pick-up point either in his
own
car or by driving a regular service coach
which is exempt from the requirement to carry a tachograph. so that the
purposes of the legislation
and
the Regulations will be defeated. Those
purposes are the protection of the public
and
the protection of the
drivers from accidents caused by driver fatigue due to too long a period
of continuous driving without a rest period.
In the instant case, there were two drivers
who
had used their
own
cars
and
one
who
had
driven anon-tachographic regular route vehicle
to the pick-up point where they immediately began to drive a tacho-
graphic coach without any intervening period of rest. The magistrates'
court referred to the European Court the question
whether
the EC
Regulations had been breached in those circumstances. The need for
such reference is obvious, for if the magistrates' court gives a judgment
against the defendant, he can at once go to the European Court, which
may disagree with
that
judgment.
Section 97(1) of the Transport Act 1968 (as amended) provides that:
'No person shall use, or cause or permit
to
be used a vehicle
to
which
this section
applies-(a)
unless there is in the vehicle recording equip-
ment
which-(i)
has been installed in accordance with the Community
Recording Equipment Regulation;
...
(iii) is being used as provided by
Articles 13 to 15 of that Regulation'.
By Article 1(5) of Regulation (EC) 3820/85 'rest' means an
155
To continue reading
Request your trial