Orders nº T-646/20 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, November 13, 2020

• Resolution Date: November 13, 2020
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-646/20

(Application for interim measures - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Absence of direct or individual concern - Inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility)

In Case T-646/20 R,

NG, and the other applicants whose names are indicated in the annex (1), represented by R. Martens, lawyer,

applicants,

v

European Parliament,

Council of the European Union,

defendants,

APPLICATION under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs (OJ 2020 L 249, p. 1),

THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT

makes the following

Order

Background to the dispute, procedure and form of order sought

1 The first 13 applicants are professional drivers engaged in long-distance international transport of goods. Their place of residence is situated in Romania.

2 The 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th applicants are transport undertakings established in Romania, with their operational centres - where their drivers are normally based and where their drivers’ regular weekly rest period begins - also situated in Romania.

3 The 18th applicant is the Uniunea Naţională a Transportatorilor Rutieri din România (National Union of Road Hauliers from Romania), the professional employers’ organisation of the Romanian road transport industry.

4 On 31 July 2020, Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs (OJ 2020 L 249, p. 1) (‘the contested regulation’) was published.

5 Pursuant to Article 1(6)(c) of the contested regulation, Article 8(8) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) is replaced by the following:

‘8. The regular weekly rest periods and any weekly rest period of more than 45 hours taken in compensation for previous reduced weekly rest periods shall not be taken in a vehicle. They shall be taken in suitable gender-friendly accommodation with adequate sleeping and sanitary facilities.

Any costs for accommodation outside the vehicle shall be covered by the employer.’

6 Pursuant to Article 1(6)(d) of the contested regulation, the following paragraph is inserted in Article 8 of Regulation No 561/2006:

‘8a. Transport undertakings shall organise the work of drivers in such a way that the drivers are able to return to the employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based and where the driver’s weekly rest period begins, in the Member State of the employer’s establishment, or to return to the drivers’ place of residence, within each period of four consecutive weeks, in order to spend at least one regular weekly rest period or a weekly rest period of more than 45 hours taken in compensation for reduced weekly rest period.

However, where the driver has taken two consecutive reduced weekly rest periods in accordance with paragraph 6, the transport undertaking shall organise the work of the driver in such a way that the driver is able to return before the start of the regular weekly rest period of more than 45 hours taken in compensation.

The undertaking shall document how it fulfils that obligation and shall keep the documentation at its premises in order to present it at the request of control authorities.’

7 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 23 October 2020, the applicants brought an action for annulment of the contested regulation.

8 By a separate document, lodged at the Court Registry on 26 October 2020, the applicants brought the present application for interim measures, in which they claim, in essence, that the President of the General Court should:

- order the suspension of the operation of the contested regulation with immediate effect, in accordance with Article 157(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, until a final judgment against which no appeal is possible has been delivered on the underlying application for suspension;

- order the suspension of the operation of the contested regulation, in accordance with Article 156 of the Rules of Procedure, until a final judgment against which no appeal is possible has been delivered on the main application for annulment;

- reserve the costs.

Law

General considerations

9 It is apparent from a combined reading of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, on the one hand, and Article 256(1) TFEU, on the other, that the...