- 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-344/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — D.J. v Radiotelevizija Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 2 — Concept of ‘working time’ — Stand-by time according to a stand-by system — Specific work maintaining television transmitters situated far away from residential areas — Directive 89/391/EEC — Articles 5 and 6 — Psychosocial risks — Obligation to prevent)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0344
62019CA0344
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
10.5.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 182/3
(Case C-344/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘working time’ - Stand-by time according to a stand-by system - Specific work maintaining television transmitters situated far away from residential areas - Directive 89/391/EEC - Articles 5 and 6 - Psychosocial risks - Obligation to prevent)
(2021/C 182/03)
Language of the case: Slovenian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: D.J.
Defendant: Radiotelevizija Slovenija
Operative part of the judgment
Article 2(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 a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system, during which the worker is required only to be contactable by telephone and able to return to his or her workplace, if necessary, within a time limit of one hour, while being able to stay in service accommodation made available to him or her by his or her employer at that workplace, without being required to remain there, does not constitute, in its entirety, working time within the meaning of that provision, unless an overall assessment of all the facts of the case, including the consequences of that time limit and, if appropriate, the average frequency of activity during that period, establishes that the constraints imposed on that worker during that period are such as to affect, objectively and very significantly, the latter’s ability freely to manage, during the same period, the time during which his or her professional services are not required and to devote that time to his or her own interests. The limited nature of the opportunities to pursue leisure activities within the immediate vicinity of the place concerned is irrelevant for the purposes of that assessment.
(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.