- 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-692/19: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Watford Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — B v Yodel Delivery Network Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Concept of ‘worker’ — Parcel delivery undertaking — Classification of couriers engaged under a services agreement — Possibility for a courier to engage subcontractors and to perform similar services concurrently for third parties)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CB0692
62019CB0692
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
31.8.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 287/22
(Case C-692/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Concept of ‘worker’ - Parcel delivery undertaking - Classification of couriers engaged under a services agreement - Possibility for a courier to engage subcontractors and to perform similar services concurrently for third parties)
(2020/C 287/33)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: B
Defendant: Yodel Delivery Network Ltd
Operative part of the order
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 precluding a person engaged by his putative employer under a services agreement which stipulates that he is a self-employed independent contractor from being classified as a ‘worker’ for the purposes of that directive, where that person is afforded discretion:
to use subcontractors or substitutes to perform the service which he has undertaken to provide;
to accept or not accept the various tasks offered by his putative employer, or unilaterally set the maximum number of those tasks;
to provide his services to any third party, including direct competitors of the putative employer, and
to fix his own hours of ‘work’ within certain parameters and to tailor his time to suit his personal convenience rather than solely the interests of the putative employer, provided that, first, the independence of that person does not appear to be fictitious and, second, it is not possible to establish the existence of a relationship of subordination between that person and his putative employer. However, it is for the referring court, taking account of all the relevant factors relating to that person and to the economic activity he carries on, to classify that person’s professional status under Directive 2003/88.
(1) OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.