Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CN0055

Case C-55/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Deutsche Bank SAE

OJ C 152, 30.4.2018, p. 8–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.4.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/8


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Deutsche Bank SAE

(Case C-55/18)

(2018/C 152/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO)

Defendant: Deutsche Bank SAE

Interested parties: Federación Estatal de Servicios de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FES-UGT), Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT), Confederación Solidaridad de Trabajadores Vascos (ELA), Confederación Intersindical Galega (CIG)

Questions referred

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?


(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).

(2)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).


Top