- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-175/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 17 — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Additional payments — Child protection association — ‘Children’s village parents’ — Temporary absence of ‘foster parents’ — Workers employed as ‘relief parents’ — Definition)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CA0175
62016CA0175
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
18.9.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 309/10
(Case C-175/16) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 17 - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Additional payments - Child protection association - ‘Children’s village parents’ - Temporary absence of ‘foster parents’ - Workers employed as ‘relief parents’ - Definition))
(2017/C 309/12)
Language of the case: Finnish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik
Defendant: SOS-Lapsikylä ry
Operative part of the judgment
Article 17(1) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot apply to paid work, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in caring for children in a family-like environment, relieving the person principally responsible for that task, where it is not established that the working time as a whole is not measured or predetermined or it may be determined by the worker himself, which is for the national court to ascertain.
(1)
OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
* * *
Language of the case: Finnish