The companies were security system installation and maintenance companies. The technicians used a company vehicle to travel from their homes in the morning to then install and maintain security systems around Spain. They would then travel back home again at the end of each day. The employers provided information on the assignments allocated to each individual on a mobile phone app which showed them their task list for that day. The technicians followed the order in which the tasks were allocated and any route the employer provided.
Both companies classed "working time" as the time between the technicians arriving at the location of their first assignment, to the departure time from their last assignment of the day. The journeys to and from the first and last jobs respectively were classed as rest time, which led the employees to raise a claim in the Spanish courts. The Spanish Court referred the question to the European Court of Justice to determine whether that was correct.
Advocate General Bot gave his opinion, which is that the first and last journeys that peripatetic workers make in the course of their working day should be included as working time. The Advocate General saw no difference between travel between jobs, which was clearly working time, and travel to and from the last jobs.
Although the Advocate General's opinion is usually followed, it is not binding on the European Court of Justice.