MOOT POINT
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I write in response to H Sexton's letter ( Cito/ 24-30 August). It appears you are reading more into the EC Court decisions than is really there and putting your own word "qualifying" into them.
The point for decision in the case of Van Swieten BV was when the period of 24 hours began in which a daily rest period must be taken. In Michielson vsGeybels Transport Service NV the issue was what was meant by "daily working period" and 'day" in the tachograph law.
Neither case involved the totalling of hours involved in the question published in CM of 1015 August and neither decision should be taken as a ruling on that matter. Should the question come before the court I feel it will take a pragmatic approach to the matter in a similar way to the advice published in CMrather than look for unnecessary complications.
You may recall that the Lancashire police view that the 4X-hour driving time for break purposes was a "rolling" 4X hours was rejected by the EC court in favour of the simple, uncomplicated interpretation adopted by France.
Jim Duckworth, Transport Law Services, Woking, Surrey.