Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2005/082/19

    Case C-22/05: Action brought on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

    ĠU C 82, 2.4.2005, p. 9–9 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    2.4.2005   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 82/9


    Action brought on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

    (Case C-22/05)

    (2005/C 82/19)

    Language of the case: French

    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Rozet and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

    The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

    1.

    declare that, by excluding persons working in fairground undertakings from the scope of national measures transposing Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1(3) and 17 of that directive;

    2.

    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The exclusion of persons working in fairground undertakings from the scope of national legislation transposing Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time is not provided for by Article 1(3) of that directive defining its scope. According to that provision, the Directive applies to all sectors of activity, with the exception of air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea and the activities of doctors in training. The category of persons working in fairground undertakings is not referred to in that article and moreover does not satisfy the conditions of any of the derogations allowed by Article 17 of the Directive, which furthermore have not been relied on by the Belgian authorities. By introducing an exception which the Directive itself did not provide for, Belgium has incorrectly transposed that directive, thereby failing to fulfil its obligations.


    (1)  OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18


    Top