Hume (Transport) [2000] EUECJ C-193/99 (28 September 2000)

Hume (Transport) [2000] EUECJ C-193/99 (28 September 2000)

Article 8(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as requiring a driver who postpones his weekly rest period to the following week to take two weekly rest periods consecutively and without any break between them in that second week.

Citation
[2000] EUECJ C-193/99
Parties
Defendant: Mr Hume; Prosecutor: Vehicle Inspectorate (on behalf of Secretary of State for Transport)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
28 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Preliminary Reference (article 234 Ec) From Sedgefield Magistrates' Court to Court of Justice
Outcome
Preliminary ruling issued; Article 8(5) requires two consecutive weekly rest periods in the second week if one is postponed.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Regulation (eec) No 3820/85, Weekly Rest Periods for Drivers, Postponement of Rest Periods, Harmonisation of Social Legislation in Road Transport
European Union Law Transport Law Criminal Law Interpretation of Regulation (eec) No 3820/85 Weekly Rest Periods for Drivers Postponement of Rest Periods Harmonisation of Social Legislation in Road Transport

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Hume

Defendant

Vehicle Inspectorate (on behalf of Secretary of State for Transport)

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Preliminary Reference (article 234 Ec) From Sedgefield Magistrates' Court to Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 8(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 requires two weekly rest periods to be taken consecutively when one is postponed to the following week
  2. 2 Whether a driver may further postpone the second week's rest period

Ratio Decidendi

Article 8(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as requiring a driver who postpones his weekly rest period to the following week to take two weekly rest periods consecutively and without any break between them in that second week.

Court Disposition

Preliminary ruling issued; Article 8(5) requires two consecutive weekly rest periods in the second week if one is postponed.

Orders

  • Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as meaning that a driver who elects to postpone his weekly rest period until the week following that in which it becomes due must take two weekly rest periods, consecutively and without any break between them, in that second week.