30.4.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/8

1.

Must it be understood that the Kingdom of Spain, by means of Articles 34 and 35 of the Workers’ Statute, as they have been interpreted by case-law, has taken the measures necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the limits to working time and of the weekly and daily rest periods established by Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 (1) [concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 299, 18/11/2003, p. 9] for full-time workers who have not expressly agreed, whether individually or collectively, to work overtime and who are not mobile workers or persons working in the merchant navy or railway transport?

2.

Must Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 3, 5, 6, 16 and 22 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, in conjunction with Articles 4(1), 11(3) and 16(3) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 (2) [on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29/06/1989, p. 1], be interpreted as precluding internal national legislation such as Articles 34 and 35 of the Workers’ Statute from which, as settled case-law has shown, it cannot be inferred that employers must set up a system for recording actual daily working time for full-time workers who have not expressly agreed, whether individually or collectively, to work overtime and who are not mobile workers or persons working in the merchant navy or railway transport?

3.

Must the imperative requirement laid down in Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 3, 5, 6, 16 and 22 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, in conjunction with Articles 4(1), 11(3) and 16(3) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989, for the Member States to limit the working time of all workers in general, be understood to be satisfied for ordinary workers by the internal national legislation, contained in Articles 34 and 35 of the Workers’ Statute from which, as settled case-law has shown, it cannot be inferred that employers are required to set up a system for recording actual daily working time for full-time workers who have not expressly agreed, whether individually or collectively, to work overtime, unlike mobile workers or persons working in the merchant navy or railway transport?