The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has further clarified the meaning of working time under EU law in the context of work-related travel (CJEU, judgment of 22 October 2026 – C-420/24). Accordingly, time spent travelling to and from a work site designated by the employer constitutes working time within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC even if the employee has a fixed or habitual place of work and the travel takes place outside their usual working hours.
Business Travel by an Employee with a Fixed Place of Work
Inspections at Various External Work Sites
The dispute concerned an employee of a Romanian infrastructure company. He was employed as head of the department responsible for investment, major repairs and disaster management. His employment contract specified Iași as his fixed place of work.
From 8 to 15 June 2021, the employee was instructed by the competent regional director to inspect construction sites on various sections of the Romanian road network. The work sites were located in Suceava, Botoșani and Focșani. He was also required to travel once to the company’s headquarters in Bucharest.
Over the course of eight days, the employee travelled more than 1,500 kilometres in total. As a rule, he returned to Iași on the same day after each trip; only from the trip to Bucharest did he return the following day. Some of the travel time fell outside his normal working hours.
Means of Transport Determined by the Employer
The employer provided a vehicle for the journeys. A driver was also provided for the trip to Bucharest. The fixed place of work in Iași served as both the point of departure and the return destination.
After completing the assignments, the employee recorded the time incurred and submitted the schedule to his employer for approval. The employer requested that the time records be amended and refused to pay for a total of 31.5 hours of travel time.
The employer took the view that the employee had not worked overtime during the journeys in question. In particular, the travel periods were not periods during which he performed his work or duties within the meaning of Article 111 of the Romanian Labour Code.
Diverging Assessments by the Romanian Courts
Claim Dismissed at First Instance
The competent court of first instance dismissed the claim. In its assessment, the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that the employee had been at his employer’s disposal and had performed his work or duties during the journeys.
The mere entry of departure and arrival times in a business travel order, without an activity report or travel record, was not sufficient to establish overtime. The court also referred to the company’s internal rules and the Romanian Labour Code. Under those provisions, compensatory time off had to be requested first; payment could be considered only if such compensatory time off was not granted within the prescribed period.
The trade union, acting in the name and on behalf of the employee, appealed the decision to the Iași Court of Appeal. That court stayed the proceedings and referred the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.
Dispute over the Scope of the Concept of Working Time
The referring court pointed to inconsistent national case law. According to one view, travel time should fall within the concept of working time under EU law only for employees without a fixed or habitual place of work. According to the opposing view, journeys undertaken by an employee with a fixed place of work could also be classified as working time if the employee was required to work elsewhere on the employer’s instructions.
The CJEU was therefore essentially asked to clarify the following questions:
-
Does travel to and from another work site designated by the employer constitute working time if it takes place outside normal working hours?
-
Do Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC preclude national legislation under which such journeys are disregarded when determining average weekly working time and calculating overtime?
Requirements for Working Time under EU Law
No Intermediate Category Between Work and Rest
Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC defines working time as any period during which a worker is working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out their activity or duties. Under Article 2(2) of the Directive, a rest period is any period that is not working time.
The CJEU emphasised that the Directive does not recognise any intermediate category. A period must be classified as either working time or a rest period. These concepts have an autonomous meaning under EU law and must be interpreted by reference to objective characteristics and in light of the purpose of the Working Time Directive.
For the purposes of classification, the Court examined three requirements:
-
The employee must be carrying out their activity or duties.
-
They must be at the employer’s disposal during the period in question.
-
They must be at work during that period.
The fact that a journey takes place outside normal working hours is not, in itself, decisive.
Journeys Formed Part of the Employee’s Contractual Duties
According to the judgment, the employee was required to comply with his employer’s instructions during the journeys. The employer determined the tasks to be completed, the destinations and the travel arrangements. It issued the business travel orders and reviewed the travel records.
The employer also determined the means of transport and the points of departure and return. The employee was required to undertake the journeys in question in order to carry out the inspections owed under his employment contract.
Subject to the Romanian court’s findings of fact, the journeys were therefore inseparably linked to his duties. They formed part of the performance of his professional activities.
Bound by the Employer’s Instructions
As regards the requirement of availability, the relevant question is whether the employee is subject to the employer’s instructions and must perform the required work if necessary. Conversely, if the employee can manage their time without significant constraints and pursue their own interests, this may weigh against classification as working time.
The employee could not independently change either the timing or the destination of the journeys. He was required to comply with his employer’s decisions even when a vehicle with a driver was provided for a journey.
According to the information provided by the referring court, he could not freely manage his time or devote it to his own interests during the travel time. Subject to further examination by the national court, he was therefore at his employer’s disposal during the journeys. The intensity of the activity carried out during that time and the amount of work performed were not material to this assessment.
A Fixed Place of Work Does Not Preclude Working Time
The CJEU had previously classified the journeys of workers without a fixed or habitual place of work as working time where they travelled to customers or returned from them. In the present case, by contrast, the employment contract expressly specified a fixed place of work.
According to the judgment, this distinction did not mean that the business journeys fell outside the concept of working time. The employee was regularly assigned duties away from his fixed place of work. Inspections and meetings outside his fixed place of work formed part of his normal functions, and the journeys required for those purposes formed part of the performance of his duties.
CJEU Ruling on Travel Time
Employer-Mandated Business Travel Constitutes Working Time
According to the judgment, Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC must be interpreted as meaning that travel time to and from a place other than the fixed or habitual place of work constitutes working time if the following characteristics are present:
-
The employer has designated the work site.
-
The employee travels there to carry out their activity or duties in accordance with the employer’s instructions.
-
The journey is inseparably linked to those duties.
-
The employee is at the employer’s disposal during the travel time.
This classification also applies to travel time outside normal working hours. Likewise, a fixed place of work specified in the employment contract does not preclude such classification.
It remains for the referring Romanian court to make findings regarding the factual circumstances of the specific case. The CJEU therefore repeatedly made its assessment subject to the examinations still to be carried out by that court.
Second Question Was Inadmissible
The CJEU did not answer the second question concerning average weekly working time and the calculation of overtime. In the Court’s view, the request for a preliminary ruling did not sufficiently explain why Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union were relevant to the decision in the main proceedings.
In particular, there was insufficient explanation of the relationship between those provisions, the national rules and the calculation of the employee’s overtime. The second question was therefore held to be inadmissible.
Remuneration Remains a Matter for the National Proceedings
The CJEU did not rule on payment for the 31.5 hours claimed. Its examination concerned the classification of the travel time as working time under EU law. Directive 2003/88/EC lays down minimum safety and health requirements, particularly concerning maximum working time and rest periods; remuneration for such periods, by contrast, is governed by the applicable national law and, where relevant, by collective agreements or employment contracts.
The Romanian court must decide on the specific claim for remuneration and the other applicable requirements. That court is also responsible for the decision on costs in the main proceedings. The CJEU’s judgment does not contain a final decision on the payment dispute.
Significance for the Employment Law Classification of Travel Time
The judgment makes clear that the working-time classification of business travel does not depend solely on whether a fixed place of work has been agreed. Instead, the relevant factors are the journey’s actual integration into the duties owed, the employer’s determination of the assignment and the restrictions on the employee’s ability to manage their time freely.
The classification as working time, compliance with rest periods and maximum working time under EU law, and any potential claim for remuneration must be considered separately. Companies and employees seeking an assessment of comparable travel time or its contractual treatment can obtain employment law advice from MTR Legal tailored to the circumstances of their particular case.
