This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62024CA0373
Case C-373/24, Ramavić: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola – Croatia) – NI v Republika Hrvatska (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2003/88/EC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Article 1(3) – Article 2(1) – Concept of working time – Activities of public prosecutors – Directive 89/391/EEC – Article 2(2) – Characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities – Periods of time on stand-by at the workplace and periods of time on stand-by according to a stand-by system carried out outside of the workplace – Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Fair and just working conditions)
Case C-373/24, Ramavić: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola – Croatia) – NI v Republika Hrvatska (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2003/88/EC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Article 1(3) – Article 2(1) – Concept of working time – Activities of public prosecutors – Directive 89/391/EEC – Article 2(2) – Characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities – Periods of time on stand-by at the workplace and periods of time on stand-by according to a stand-by system carried out outside of the workplace – Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Fair and just working conditions)
Case C-373/24, Ramavić: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola – Croatia) – NI v Republika Hrvatska (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2003/88/EC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Article 1(3) – Article 2(1) – Concept of working time – Activities of public prosecutors – Directive 89/391/EEC – Article 2(2) – Characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities – Periods of time on stand-by at the workplace and periods of time on stand-by according to a stand-by system carried out outside of the workplace – Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Fair and just working conditions)
OJ C, C/2025/6594, 22.12.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6594/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/2025/6594 |
22.12.2025 |
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola – Croatia) – NI v Republika Hrvatska
(Case C-373/24, (1) Ramavić (2) )
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Article 1(3) - Article 2(1) - Concept of ‘working time’ - Activities of public prosecutors - Directive 89/391/EEC - Article 2(2) - Characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities - Periods of time on stand-by at the workplace and periods of time on stand-by according to a stand-by system carried out outside of the workplace - Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Fair and just working conditions)
(C/2025/6594)
Language of the case: Croatian
Referring court
Općinski sud u Puli-Pola
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: NI
Defendant: Republika Hrvatska
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 1(3) of 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, read in conjunction with Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that public prosecutors fall within the scope of that directive. |
|
2. |
Article 2 of Council Directive 89/391/ECC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, to which Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88 refers, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which excludes the activity of public prosecutors from the scope of Directive 2003/88, in so far as that activity, where it is carried out in normal circumstances, may be subject to the planning of working time in a way that respects the requirements imposed by Directive 2003/88. |
|
3. |
Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that a period of time on stand-by carried out outside of normal working time by public prosecutors, which requires the mandatory presence of those prosecutors at the workplace, or a period of time on stand-by according to a stand-by system, which requires the public prosecutor to be present at his or her home, must be classified as ‘working time’, within the meaning of Article 2, in so far as, during those periods of time on stand-by, the constraints imposed on those public prosecutors are such that they objectively and very significantly affect the ability, for those public prosecutors, freely to manage, during those periods, the time during which their professional services are not required and to use that time to pursue their own interests. |
(1) OJ C, C/2024/5493.
(2) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6594/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)