29.8.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/26

(Case C-227/09)

2009/C 205/44

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Antonino Accardo, Viola Acella, Antonio Acuto, Domenico Ambrisi, Paolo Battaglino, Riccardo Bevilacqua, Fabrizio Bolla, Daniela Bottazzi, Roberto Brossa, Luigi Calabró, Roberto Cammardella, Michelangelo Capaldi, Giorgio Castellaro, Davide Cauda, Tatiana Chiampo, Alessia Ciaravino, Alessandro Cicero, Paolo Curtabbi, Paolo Dabbene, Mauro D’Angelo, Giancarlo Destefanis, Mario Di Brita, Bianca Di Capua, Michele Di Chio, Marina Ferrero, Gino Forlani, Giovanni Galvagno, Sonia Genisio, Laura Dora Genovese, Sonia Gili, Maria Gualtieri, Gaetano La Spina, Maurizio Loggia, Giovanni Lucchetta, Sandra Magoga, Manuela Manfredi, Fabrizio Maschio, Sonia Mignone, Daniela Minissale, Domenico Mondello, Veronica Mossa, Plinio Paduano, Barbaro Pallavidino, Monica Palumbo, Michele Paschetto, Federica Peinetti, Nadia Pizzimenti, Gianluca Ponzo, Enrico Pozzato, Gaetano Puccio, Danilo Ranzani, Piergianni Risso, Luisa Rossi, Paola Sabia, Renzo Sangiano, Davide Scagno, Paola Settia, Raffaella Sottoriva, Rossana Trancuccio, Fulvia Varotto, Giampiero Zucca, Fabrizio Lacognata, Guido Mandia, Luigi Rigon, Daniele Sgavetti

Defendant: Comune di Torino

Questions referred

1.On a proper construction of [Articles 5, 17 and 18 of Council Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time], are those provisions capable of being applied directly in the legal order of a Member State, irrespective of whether formal transposition has taken place or irrespective of national rules which restrict their applicability to certain occupations, in a dispute in which reference is made to collective measures adopted by both sides of industry which are in conformity with that directive?

2.Are the courts of that Member State in any event under a duty, irrespective of such direct application, to use a directive which has not yet been transposed into national law or the operation of which, following transposition, appears to be precluded by national rules, as an aid to construction of the national law and thus as a basis for resolving possible doubts as to interpretation?

3.Are the courts of that Member State precluded from declaring conduct unlawful, and on that basis awarding damages on grounds of unfairness and unlawfulness, where the conduct in question appears to be authorised by both sides of industry and such authorisation is consistent with Community law, albeit in the form of the directive which has not yet been transposed into national law?

4.Should Article 17(3) of … Directive [93/104] be construed as permitting — on its own terms, and thus wholly independently of Article 17(2) thereof and the list of occupations and professions set out therein — the collective measures adopted by both sides of industry and the provision made thereunder for derogations in relation to weekly rest periods?

(1) OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18.