Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61994J0235

	Název: Title:		UDGMENT OF THE COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) OF 9 NOVEMBER 1995. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALAN JEFFREY BIRD. REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING: CROWN COURT, BOLTON - UNITED KINGDOM. SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT - EXCEPTIONS FOR REASONS OF SAFETY. CASE C-235/94.

	Publikace: Publication:		eports of Cases 1995 pages I-3933

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		Paterson Case 90/83 Paterson v Weddel [1984] ECR 1567 · British Gas Case C-116/91 Licensing Authority South Eastern Traffic Area v British Gas [1992] ECR I-4071


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Mr Bird, who was employed by a haulage company, had, in two instances, driven his vehicle for in excess of the driving periods provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85
Of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social security legislation relating to road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p.1).
. In both cases, Mr Bird and his employer had already anticipated before the journey began that it would not be possible to comply with the provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation
The first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Regulation provides:
“The driving period between any two daily rest periods or between a daily rest period and a weekly rest period, hereinafter called ‘daily driving period’, shall not exceed nine hours. It may be extended twice in any one week to 10 hours.”
Article 7(1) provides:
“After four-and-a-half hours’ driving, the driver shall observe a break of at least 45 minutes, unless he begins a rest period.”
. It was common ground that the goods transported were of high value and that road safety was not jeopardized.
In his appeal to the Crown Court against convictions for said offences, Mr Bird argued,
inter alia
, that Article 12 of the Regulation allowed planned derogations from the other provisions of the Regulation in order to ensure the safety of the load. Article 12 of the Regulation allows a driver to depart from the provisions of the Regulation to enable him to reach a suitable stopping place to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the person, of the vehicle or of its load.
Article 12 reads as follows:
“Provided that road safety is not thereby jeopardized and to enable him to reach a suitable stopping place, the driver may depart from the provisions of this regulation to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of persons, of the vehicle or of its load. The driver shall indicate the nature of and reason for his departure from those provisions on the record sheet of the recording equipment or in his duty roster.”
The Crown Court stayed the proceedings and under Article 177 of the Treaty referred to the Court of Justice the question (as restated by the Court) whether Article 12 of Council Regulation 3820/85 authorizes a driver to derogate from the provisions of Articles 6 and 7 or 8 of the Regulation for the reasons known before the journey was commenced.

Názor soudu a komentář:
The Court finds that Article 12 of the Regulation does allow a derogation from the general diving and rest periods in circumstances such as those in issue in the present case.
As a general matter, the Court, based on its established case-law, emphasizes that Article 12, constituting an exception to the general rules, is to be construed narrowly: derogations are not to be interpreted in such a way as to extend their effects beyond what is necessary to safeguard the interests which they seek to secure” (
Paterson; British Gas
). The Court goes on to point out by whom, when and under what circumstances the decision to derogate from the provisions of the Regulation is to be made.
As is clear from the wording of Article 12, the decision is for the driver to make, not for the employer. The provision anticipates that it may, under certain circumstances of an individual case, be contrary to the purpose of the Regulation to demand that the driver comply strictly with the driving and rest periods set out therein. As the reference to the “suitable stopping place” and the requirement that road safety must not be jeopardized show, the provision is concerned with the case that it unexpectedly becomes impossible to comply with the Regulation during the course of the journey: Before a journey commences, the driver is not in a position to make the assessment thus required. It follows that Article 12 cannot be invoked to justify a derogation from the Regulation which has been planned for before the journey has started. The systematic context with Article 15(1) of the Regulation confirms this interpretation: Article 15 requires transport undertakings to organize work in such a way that drivers are able to comply with the Regulation and thus preclude an undertaking from planning a derogation before the driver leaves.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):