Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2004/300/03

    Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2004 in Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach): Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/01), Albert Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus Nestvogel (C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01), Matthias Döbele (C-403/01) v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (Social policy — Protection of the health and safety of workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Scope — Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross — Definition of ‘road transport’ — Maximum weekly working time — Principle — Direct effect — Derogation — Conditions)

    IO C 300, 4.12.2004, p. 2–3 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    4.12.2004   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 300/2

    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

    (Grand Chamber)

    of 5 October 2004

    in Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach): Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/01), Albert Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus Nestvogel (C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01), Matthias Döbele (C-403/01) v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1)

    (Social policy - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Directive 93/104/EC - Scope - Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross - Definition of ‘road transport’ - Maximum weekly working time - Principle - Direct effect - Derogation - Conditions)

    (2004/C 300/03)

    Language of the case: German

    In Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach (Germany), made by orders of 26 September 2001, received at the Court on 12 October 2001, in the proceedings between Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/01), Albert Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus Nestvogel (C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01), Matthias Döbele (C-403/01) and Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

    1.

    (a)

    Article 2 of 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 and Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be construed as meaning that the activity of emergency workers, carried out in the framework of an emergency medical service, such as that at issue before the national court, falls within the scope of the directives.

    (b)

    On a proper construction, the concept of ‘road transport’ in Article 1(3) of Directive 93/104 does not encompass the activity of an emergency medical service, even though the latter includes using a vehicle and accompanying a patient on the journey to hospital.

    2.

    The first indent of Article 18(1)(b)(i) of Directive 93/104 is to be construed as requiring consent to be expressly and freely given by each worker individually if the 48-hour maximum period of weekly working time, as laid down in Article 6 of the directive, is to be validly extended. In that connection, it is not sufficient that the relevant worker's employment contract refers to a collective agreement which permits such an extension.

    3.

    Article 6, point 2, of Directive 93/104 must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, as precluding legislation in a Member State the effect of which, as regards periods of duty time (‘Arbeitsbereitschaft’) completed by emergency workers in the framework of the emergency medical service of a body such as the Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, is to permit, including by means of a collective agreement or works agreement based on such an agreement, the 48-hour maximum period of weekly working time laid down by that provision to be exceeded;

    —

    Article 6(2) of Directive 93/104 fulfils all the conditions necessary for it to have direct effect;

    —

    when hearing a case between individuals the national court is required, when applying the provisions of domestic law adopted for the purpose of transposing obligations laid down by a directive, to consider the whole body of rules of national law and to interpret them, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the directive in order to achieve an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by the directive. In the main proceedings, the national court must thus do whatever lies within its jurisdiction to ensure that the maximum period of weekly working time, which is set at 48 hours by Article 6(2) of Directive 93/104, is not exceeded.

    (1)  OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.

    Top