EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62004CJ0484

Sumarul hotărârii

Hotărârea Curții (camera a treia) din data de 7 septembrie 2006.
Comisia Comunităților Europene împotriva Regatului Unit al Marii Britanii și Irlandai de Nord.
Neîndeplinirea obligațiilor de către un stat membru - Politica socială - Directivă 93/104/CE - Articols 3 și 5.
Cauza C-484/04.



Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time

(Council Directive 93/104, Arts 3, 5 and 17(1))


A Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1), (3) and (5) of Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as amended by Directive 2000/34, when it applies to workers whose working time is partially not measured or predetermined or can be determined partially by the worker himself the derogation provided for in Article 17(1) and when it fails to adopt the measures necessary to implement the rights of workers to daily and weekly rest.

In this latter respect, in order to ensure that the rights conferred on workers by Directive 93/104 are fully effective, Member States are under an obligation to guarantee that the right to benefit from effective rest is observed. A Member State which, in the national measure implementing that directive, provides that workers are entitled to certain rights to rest and which, in the guidelines for employers and workers on the implementation of those rights, indicates that the employer is nevertheless not required to ensure that the workers actually exercise such rights, does not guarantee compliance with either the minimum requirements laid down by Articles 3 and 5 of that directive or its essential objective. By letting it be understood that, while employers cannot prevent the minimum rest periods from being taken by the workers, they are under no obligation to ensure that the latter are actually able to exercise such a right, the guidelines are clearly liable to render the rights enshrined in Articles 3 and 5 of that directive meaningless and are incompatible with the objective of that directive, in which minimum rest periods are considered to be essential for the protection of workers’ health and safety.

(see paras 40, 42, 44, 47, operative part)