This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62024CN0420
Case C-420/24, Sindicatul Drumarilor Elie Radu: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iași (Romania) lodged on 11 June 2024 – Sindicatul Drumarilor Elie Radu, in the name and on behalf of its member BZ v Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA – Direcția Regională de Drumuri și Poduri Iași
Case C-420/24, Sindicatul Drumarilor Elie Radu: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iași (Romania) lodged on 11 June 2024 – Sindicatul Drumarilor Elie Radu, in the name and on behalf of its member BZ v Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA – Direcția Regională de Drumuri și Poduri Iași
Case C-420/24, Sindicatul Drumarilor Elie Radu: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iași (Romania) lodged on 11 June 2024 – Sindicatul Drumarilor Elie Radu, in the name and on behalf of its member BZ v Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA – Direcția Regională de Drumuri și Poduri Iași
OJ C, C/2024/5604, 30.9.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5604/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2024/5604 |
30.9.2024 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iași (Romania) lodged on 11 June 2024 – Sindicatul Drumarilor ‘Elie Radu’, in the name and on behalf of its member BZ v Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA – Direcția Regională de Drumuri și Poduri Iași
(Case C-420/24, Sindicatul Drumarilor ‘Elie Radu’)
(C/2024/5604)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Curtea de Apel Iași
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant and applicant at first instance: Sindicatul Drumarilor ‘Elie Radu’, in the name and on behalf of its member BZ
Respondent and defendant at first instance: Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA – Direcția Regională de Drumuri și Poduri Iași
Questions referred
|
1. |
Must Article 2(1) of [Directive 2003/88] (1) be interpreted as meaning that the periods during which a worker (i) travels outside normal working hours to another place, other than his or her fixed or habitual place of work, in order to carry out his or her activity or duties there, in accordance with his or her employer’s instructions, and (ii) makes the return journey, constitute ‘working time’? |
|
2. |
Must Article 31(2) of [the Charter] and Article 6(b) of [Directive 2003/88] be interpreted as precluding a provision of national legislation under which neither the hours corresponding to a worker’s travel to another place, other than his or her fixed or habitual place of work, in order to carry out his or her activity or duties there, in accordance with his or her employer’s instructions, nor the hours corresponding to the return journey, are to be taken into account in determining whether the threshold of average weekly working time for the calculation of overtime has been reached, in relation to the national definition of overtime, understood exclusively as ‘work performed outside the normal weekly working hours’? |
(1) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5604/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)