The case concerned the Hungarian railway company MÁV-START and one of its employed drivers, who had been denied daily rest whenever the latter preceded weekly rest.

According to the company, since the collective agreement applicable to the case grants a minimum weekly rest period (of at least 42 hours) well over that required by the Directive (24 hours), the employee was sufficiently protected.

The Miskolc District Court, before which the employee brought his case, asks the Court of Justice in particular whether, for the Directive, a daily rest period granted concurrently with a weekly rest period is part of that weekly rest period.

The Court stated that daily and weekly rest periods constitute two autonomous rights that pursue different objectives, and workers must be guaranteed the actual enjoyment of each of those rights.

The Court underlines that daily rest allows workers to remove themself from their working environment for a specific number of hours, which must not only be consecutive but also directly follow a period of work. 

On the other side, weekly rest allows a worker to rest every seven days.

Therefore, if the daily rest were part of the weekly rest period, the right to daily rest would become meaningless, as the worker would be deprived of actual enjoyment.

Moreover, the Court points out that the Directive expressly provides a minimum period for the right to weekly rest and that this period is in addition to the period relating to the right to daily rest.

It follows that the daily rest period is not part of the weekly rest period but is in addition to it, even if it directly precedes the latter.

Employers must therefore consider this critical principle and adapt their decisions under European law.