1. Definition of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’

In terms of the wording of the Directive, the Court has ruled that in the logic of the Directive, working time is ‘placed in opposition to rest periods, the two being mutually exclusive’ (105) and that the Directive ‘does not provide for any intermediate category between working time and rest periods’ (106). The Court has held that the concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’‘may not be interpreted in accordance with the requirements of the various legislations of the Member States but constitute concepts of Community law which must be defined in accordance with objective characteristics by reference to the scheme and purpose of that directive, intended to improve workers’ living and working conditions. Only such an autonomous interpretation is capable of securing full effectiveness for that directive and uniform application of those concepts in all the Member States’ (107). This also means that Member States cannot unilaterally determine the scope of these concepts (108). This is further corroborated by the fact that the Directive does not permit any derogation from Article 2 of the Directive (109), which establishes, amongst others, the definitions of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’. With reference to the text of Article 2(1) itself, the Court’s case-law (110) and historical documents (111), three cumulative criteria determine whether certain periods are deemed to be ‘working time’:

← doc__table__106 · All articles · sec_1__4__para →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-25 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.