EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-420/24, Sindicatul Drumarilor Elie Radu: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iași (Romania) lodged on 11 June 2024 – Sindicatul Drumarilor Elie Radu, in the name and on behalf of its member BZ v Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA – Direcția Regională de Drumuri și Poduri Iași

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0420

62024CN0420

June 11, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/5604

30.9.2024

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iași (Romania) lodged on 11 June 2024 – Sindicatul Drumarilor ‘Elie Radu’, in the name and on behalf of its member BZ v Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA – Direcția Regională de Drumuri și Poduri Iași

(Case C-420/24, Sindicatul Drumarilor ‘Elie Radu’)

(C/2024/5604)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and applicant at first instance: Sindicatul Drumarilor ‘Elie Radu’, in the name and on behalf of its member BZ

Respondent and defendant at first instance: Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA – Direcția Regională de Drumuri și Poduri Iași

Questions referred

1.Must Article 2(1) of [Directive 2003/88] (1) be interpreted as meaning that the periods during which a worker (i) travels outside normal working hours to another place, other than his or her fixed or habitual place of work, in order to carry out his or her activity or duties there, in accordance with his or her employer’s instructions, and (ii) makes the return journey, constitute ‘working time’?

2.Must Article 31(2) of [the Charter] and Article 6(b) of [Directive 2003/88] be interpreted as precluding a provision of national legislation under which neither the hours corresponding to a worker’s travel to another place, other than his or her fixed or habitual place of work, in order to carry out his or her activity or duties there, in accordance with his or her employer’s instructions, nor the hours corresponding to the return journey, are to be taken into account in determining whether the threshold of average weekly working time for the calculation of overtime has been reached, in relation to the national definition of overtime, understood exclusively as ‘work performed outside the normal weekly working hours’?

(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).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5604/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia