Notice for the OJ
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
9 September 2003
in Case C-151/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein): Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger(1) (Social policy ( Protection of the safety and health of workers ( Directive 93/104/EC ( Concepts of 'working time' and 'rest period' ( On-call service ('Bereitschaftsdienst') provided by doctors in hospitals)
(Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-151/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Landeshauptstadt Kiel and Norbert Jaeger on the interpretation of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) and, in particular, Articles 2(1) and (3) thereof, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
1.Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that on-call duty ('Bereitschaftsdienst') performed by a doctor where he is required to be physically present in the hospital must be regarded as constituting in its totality working time for the purposes of that directive even where the person concerned is permitted to rest at his place of work during the periods when his services are not required with the result that that directive precludes legislation of a Member State which classifies as rest periods an employee's periods of inactivity in the context of such on-call duty.
2.Directive 93/104 must also be interpreted as meaning that:
(in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, that directive precludes legislation of a Member State which, in the case of on-call duty where physical presence in the hospital is required, has the effect of enabling, in an appropriate case by means of a collective agreement or a works agreement based on a collective agreement, an offset only in respect of periods of on-call duty during which the worker has actually been engaged in professional activities;
(in order to come within the derogating provisions set out in Article 17(2), subparagraph 2.1(c)(i) of the directive, a reduction in the daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours by a period of on-call duty performed in addition to normal working time is subject to the condition that equivalent compensating rest periods be accorded to the workers concerned at times immediately following the corresponding periods worked;
(furthermore, in no circumstances may such a reduction in the daily rest period lead to the maximum weekly working time laid down in Article 6 of the directive being exceeded.
____________1 - OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002