Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009CA0428

Case C-428/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — Union syndicale Solidaires Isère v Premier ministre, Ministère du Travail, des Relations sociales, de la Famille, de la Solidarité et de la Ville, Ministère de la Santé et des Sports (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Articles 1, 3 and 17 — Scope — Casual and seasonal activity of persons employed under an educational commitment contract — Restriction on the working time of such staff in holiday and leisure centres to 80 days per annum — National legislation not providing, for such staff, a minimum daily rest period — Derogations from Article 17 — Conditions — Ensuring an equivalent period of compensatory rest or, in exceptional cases, appropriate protection)

OJ C 346, 18.12.2010, p. 20–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/20


Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — Union syndicale Solidaires Isère v Premier ministre, Ministère du Travail, des Relations sociales, de la Famille, de la Solidarité et de la Ville, Ministère de la Santé et des Sports

(Case C-428/09) (1)

(Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Articles 1, 3 and 17 - Scope - Casual and seasonal activity of persons employed under an ‘educational commitment contract’ - Restriction on the working time of such staff in holiday and leisure centres to 80 days per annum - National legislation not providing, for such staff, a minimum daily rest period - Derogations from Article 17 - Conditions - Ensuring an equivalent period of compensatory rest or, in exceptional cases, appropriate protection)

2010/C 346/32

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Union syndicale Solidaires Isère

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministère du Travail, des Relations sociales, de la Famille, de la Solidarité et de la Ville, Ministère de la Santé et des Sports

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — Interpretation of Article 17(1),(2) and (3)(b) 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 (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same directive — Casual and seasonal activity of persons with educational commitment contracts — Compatibility with the directive of national rules restricting the working time of such persons in holiday and leisure centres to 80 days per annum but not ensuring minimum daily rest periods — Concepts of ‘equivalent periods of compensatory rest’ and ‘appropriate protection to be afforded to the workers concerned’

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Persons employed under contracts such as the educational commitment contracts at issue in the main proceedings, carrying out casual and seasonal activities in holiday and leisure centres, and completing a maximum of 80 working days per annum, are within the scope 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;

2.

Persons employed under contracts such as the educational commitment contracts at issue in the main proceedings, carrying out casual and seasonal activities at holiday and leisure centres, fall within the scope of the derogation in Article 17(3)(b) and/or 17(3)(c) of Directive 2003/88.

National legislation which restricts the activity carried out under such contracts to 80 days per annum does not satisfy the conditions set out in Article 17(2) of that directive which govern the application of that derogation, to the effect that the workers concerned are to be afforded equivalent periods of compensatory rest or, in exceptional cases where the granting of such periods is not possible for objective reasons, appropriate protection.


(1)  OJ 2010 C 24, 30.1.2010.


Top