The European Court of Justice (ECJ) holds that a 'period of standby' is not proper working time under the Working Time Directive.

In this particular case, a technician in Slovenia was required to be on standby to respond to issues at various worksites. Whilst he was not required to remain at the site during a period of standby, he was required be contactable by telephone and to return to the site within one hour if needed. This effectively required him to remain at the sites during standby periods.

The technician argued that this was working time. Even though there was no obligation for him to remain at the workplace during that time, the remote location of the transmission centres meant that he was not able to travel anywhere else or make varied use of his time.

The ECJ ruled that the period of standby would not be considered to be working time under the Working Time Directive, simply because he was required to be contactable by telephone and return to the site within one hour - despite the practical implications.

The decision is a fact-sensitive one. The fact that the technician lived far from his workplace was not a relevant factor that would influence the court. The worker was in a position to live closer if he wished to do so. The court also dismissed the argument that because there was a limited opportunity for leisure activity, that this was a decisive factor in determining whether the time spent on standby was working time. Periods during which the impossibility of leaving, due to the nature of the workplace will not necessarily mean that the time spent at the workplace will amount to working time.

Whilst ECJ judgements are no longer binding, this judgement is broadly consistent with the UK Supreme Court's decision in the Mencap case.