The Concept of ‘working time’ – Journeys to a Workplace Other than the Usual One
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2026
Case No: C‑420/24
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that the time spent travelling by a worker with a fixed place of work must be regarded as working time when, on the employer’s instructions, they travel to a location other than their usual place of work and return from it.
According to the CJEU, such journeys fall within the definition of ‘working time’ set out in Directive 2003/88/EC: ‘any period during which the worker is working or is at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his or her activity or duties’.
In the Court’s view, travel is inseparable from the duties inherent in the worker’s professional activity when the worker is required to travel in order to carry out the work provided for in their employment contract, under the travel conditions imposed by the employer. The Court also considered it decisive that, during that time, the worker is obliged to be physically present at the location determined by the employer and to be available there to perform the relevant duties immediately; they are therefore unable to manage that time freely or use it to attend to their own interests.
Non-Competition Agreement – Differential Competition
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 20 October 2026
Case No: 21891/23.1T8PRT.P1.S1
In the view of the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ), the validity of a post-contractual non-competition agreement at the time of its conclusion is not sufficient, in itself, to conclude that there has been a breach of the agreement by an employee who goes on to perform the same duties at another company, even if that company operates, potentially and partially, in the same market; it is necessary to assess the specific competitive risk at the time the employee leaves.
According to the STJ, it may be reasonable to foresee, at the start of the employment contract, that the contracted activity, by its very nature, may harm the employer, which justifies a post-contractual non-competition clause. However, the manner in which the contract is actually performed may render the restriction irrelevant. If the employee does not actually acquire the specific knowledge initially envisaged, or if that knowledge ceases, in the meantime, to be specific, the advantage they might derive from the duties performed may never materialise or may be greatly reduced.
Disciplinary Proceedings – Full Consolidation of Proceedings
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 20 October 2026
Case No: 932/25.3T8CTB-A.C1.S1
The STJ states in this ruling that, in a court case concerning the validity and lawfulness of a dismissal for just cause, the disciplinary proceedings must, as a rule, be submitted to the court in full, as this is the only way to fulfil the purpose of this legal requirement, which is to guarantee the employee the right to an effective and full defence.
Thus, if the disciplinary proceedings are not submitted to the court in their entirety, the dismissal will, as a matter of principle, be declared unlawful, unless the employer demonstrates that the partial submission did not prejudice the employee's defence.
The STJ emphasises, however, that the unlawfulness of the dismissal is not limited solely to cases where the failure to attach the proceedings in full made the employee's defence impossible; it is sufficient to demonstrate that it hindered it. Thus, the fact that the employee was able to defend themselves, viewed ex post, is not sufficient to rule out prejudice, as their defence may not have been of the same standard as it would have been had they had access to the entire proceedings.
Individual Redundancy – Practical Impossibility of Maintaining the Employment Relationship
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 21 September 2026
Case No: 4106/24.2T8MTS.P1.S1
In this judgment, the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) upheld the decision of the Lisbon Court of Appeal of 27 May 2026, which was analysed in our July edition.
At issue are the requirements for individual redundancy, in particular whether the employer may claim that it is practically impossible to maintain the employment relationship because no other post compatible with the employee's professional category is available, when the company has vacancies to which the employee cannot be appointed without specific training.
The STJ held that the alternative post may involve duties different from those of the employee, provided that these are compatible with their qualifications and skills and that their statutory category does not preclude this. The need for some adaptation training does not invalidate this conclusion, provided that it does not exceed what is normal in the event of a change of post (supplementary or refresher training). The same does not apply where the new post is in an area for which the employee lacks the necessary qualifications and skills, or where it requires training from scratch (qualification training) rather than merely supplementary training.
Non-Reduction of Remuneration – Change of Duties at the Employee's Initiative
Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal of 23 September 2026
Case No. 7416/23.2T8LRS.L1-4
According to the Lisbon Court of Appeal, the guarantee of non-reduction of remuneration, provided for in Article 129(1)(d) of the Labour Code, is intended to protect the employee against reductions in remuneration caused by the employer's conduct. However, it does not cover reductions that result solely from the employee's own will.
Consequently, an employee who, of their own volition, moves to a lower-ranked category with lower remuneration cannot invoke the guarantee of non-reduction of remuneration. This will be the case where the employee voluntarily applies, as part of an internal recruitment process within their employer's group of companies, for a position in another group company, with duties different from those they had performed until then, and to which a different collective labour regulation instrument applied.
